cTWODERNISM 

AND  ITS  RE-STATEMENT  OF 

CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE: 

IS  IT  THE  TRUTH  OF  GOD  ? 


New  York 

LOIZEAUX  BROTHERS,  PUBLISHERS 
1  East  13th  Street 


THE  BIBLE  TRUTH  PRESS 
1  EAST  13TH  STREET.  NEW  YORK 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


FOREWORD 


In  this  review  of  Modernism,  chiefly  from  its  religious 
viewpoint,  and  in  particular  as  to  how  it  affects  the  truth 
concerning  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  I  have  especially  used 
the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Macbride  Sterrett’s  book,  “Modernism  in 
Religion.’’*  A  review  of  it  assures  us  that,  “This  book  is 
really  different.  It  is  thrilling,  it  is  scholarly,  it  is  de¬ 
vout.  There  is  a  conspicuous  absence  of  both  the  ‘cant’ 
of  the  ecclesiastic  and  the  ‘can’t’  of  the  skeptic.  A  con 
centrated  common  sense  graces  every  page.  It  will  clear 
rather  than  create  doubt.”t  The  choice,  then,  of  this 
book  for  the  purpose  in  hand  would  seem  to  be  fortunate. 
My  reader  can  surely  count  upon  its  presentation  of 
Modernism  being  safe  and  sane,  and  feel  assured  that  its 
case  is  fairly,  and  I  must  almost  say  moderately,  pre 
sented  by  its  accomplished  author. 

“Christianity  and  Progress”  by  Dr.  Harry  E.  Fosdick 
has  also  been  referred  to  in  several  connections. 


*  The  Macmillan  Co.,  1922. 
t  Review  and  Expositor. 


4 


Foreword 


Works  of  general  reference,  of  acknowledged  repute, 
have  been  consulted  so  that  the  ground  might  be  thor¬ 
oughly  covered,  at  least  as  far  as  concerns  the  particular 
aspect  of  Modernism  which  comes  before  the  reader  in  this 
volume. 

It  is  sent  forth  with  the  hope  that  it  will  prove  both 
helpful  and  enlightening  to  those  who  are  in  any  measure 
concerned  about  the  trend  of  present-day  religious  move¬ 
ment,  and  a  warning  to  those  who  may  be  indifferent  to 
what  is  involved,  and  an  awakening  note  to  at  least  some 
who  are  already  ensnared. 

John  Bloore. 


Plainfield,  August,  1923. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTERS  PAGE 

Introduction  .  7 

I.  — Our  standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment:  Is  it 

the  Bible  or  Science? .  19 

II.  — The  Bible,  what  it  is .  46 

III.  — Man’s  history  and  condition:  Does  it  witness  to 

evolution  or  devolution? .  68 

IV.  — The  virgin  birth  of  Jesus:  Is  it  fable  or  abso¬ 

lute  necessity  in  view  of  all  the  requirements  of 
the  case?  .  92 

V.  — The  humanity  of  Jesus:  What  are  its  charac¬ 

teristic  elements?  What  was  its  state  in  Him? 
Was  it  real  and  true  humanity? . 112 

VI,  — The  deity  of  Jesus:  Is  it  an  ethical  ideal  or  con¬ 

crete  fact?  Is  it  merely  divinity  manifested  in 
humanity,  or  deity  and  humanity  in  perfectly 
manifested  union,  though  inscrutable  as  to  ana¬ 
lysis  by  the  finite  mind? . 128 

VII.  — The  death  of  Jesus:  Was  it  a  supreme  example 

only,  the  consummation  of  a  perfect  life  of  self- 
sacrifice,  or  was  it  for  atonement  as  a  propitia¬ 
tory  and  substitutionary  sacrifice? . 163 

VIII. — The  resurrection  of  Jesus:  Was  it  a  fact  or  an 
^‘ethical  miracle?”  What  relation  does  it  bear  to 
the  truth  of  Christianity? . 184 


6 


Contents 


IX. — The  second  coming  of  Jesus:  Is  it  an  ethical 
idea,  or  an  actual  personal  appearing,  and  still 
future?  . 204 

X. — Conclusion:  A  brief  statement  of  Biblical  truth 
as  to  God  —  Christ  —  the  Spirit  —  Israel  —  the 
Church — creation  and  nature — man,  his  nature, 
fall,  salvation,  destiny  —  world-conditions  and 
their  consummation — the  Second  Coming . 223 

APPENDICES 

I. — Some  critical  blunders . 272 

II. — Tables  of  References . 274 

III.  — The  Genuineness  of  John’s  Gospel . 283 

IV.  — “The  New  Testament  To-day” . 294 


INTRODUCTION 


Modernism,  in  the  aspect  we  are  to  consider  it, 
is  a  distinctively  religious  movement.  It  stands 
for  what  is  called  a  new  spirit,  and  for  the  use  of  modem 
methods,  particularly  defined  as  the  inductive  and  prag¬ 
matic  method  in  the  study  of  religious  teaching  and  ethics. 
It  affirms  that  the  Holy  Spirit  “is  speaking  through  men 
in  the  20  th  century  as  strongly  and  inspiringly  as  to  men 
of  other  ages.”  It  is  imbued  with  “the  desire  and  effort 
to  find  a  new  theological  synthesis,  consistent  with  the 
data  of  historico-critical  research.”  This  means  an  entire 
reconstruction  of  belief,  “a  radical  transformation  of  hu¬ 
man  thought  in  relation  to  God,  man,  the  world,  and  life, 
here  and  hereafter.” 

These  tenets  are  clearly  defined  in  a  large  number  of 
recently  published  books.  Owing  to  the  fact  of  their  very 
wide  acceptance,  what  they  present  to  us  demands  our 
careful  consideration.  Modernists  avow  their  purpose  to 
think,  act  and  worship  according  to  20th  century  concep¬ 
tions,  and  to  live  in  better  harmony  with  the  modern 
world-view.  This  involves  the  most  radical  changes  in  re¬ 
lation  to  every  aspect  of  Christianity,  and  the  sincere, 
earnest  soul  may  well  raise  the  question.  Is  it  the  truth 
of  God?  We  must  of  necessity  try  the  spirits  to  see  if 
they  are  of  God  or  not.  Thus  we  find  ourselves  imme- 


8 


Modernism 


diately  faced  by  the  question  as  to  what  we  shall  use  to 
try  and  test  the  word  of  these  modern  oracles.  To  this 
they  give  their  answer  which,  after  all,  leaves  us  where  we 
must  either  exercise  a  blind  faith  in  their  word,  or  seek 
further  for  what  will  test  and  prove  them.  Since  we 
choose  the  latter,  they  certainly  cannot  object  to  the  use 
of  inductive  and  pragmatic  methods  in  making  the  test, 
for  they  approve  of  these  methods. 

The  Modernist  attitude  is  connected  with  certain  prom¬ 
inent  modern  conceptions  which  are  applied  to,  and  made 
fundamental  to,  the  interpretation  of  doctrine  and  belief. 
These  constitute  what  is  called  the  world-view,  to  which 
the  Modernist  seeks  to  conform  everything  of  a  religious 
nature  in  both  the  natural  and  spiritual  realms,  that  he 
may  think,  act  and  worship  in  accord  with  the  20th 
century. 

Let  us  summarize  these  modern  conceptions  which  are 
basic  to  the  attitude  and  views  we  have  under  consider¬ 
ation. 

1.  Evolution  stands  in  the  forefront  with  its  hypothe¬ 
tical  development  of  man  from  that  division  of  mammals 
which  includes  the  apes  and  monkeys. 

2.  The  Unity  and  Order  of  Nature,  in  the  light  of 
which  it  is  affirmed  there  can  be  no  room  for  the  inter¬ 
vention  of  the  supernatural  or  miraculous.  This  means 
an  unbroken  and  universal  unijoirmity  in  the  universe. 

3.  The  Divine  Immanence  in  Nature  and  Man, 
blended  with  God’s  transcendency.  The  former  idea  is 
stated  to  be  “the  recognition  in  the  world,  of  which  we 
are  a  part,  of  spiritual  qualities  and  values,  and  what  we 
cannot  but  call  spiritual  purpose,  with  which  as  spiritual 


Introduction 


9 


beings,  rational,  beauty-loving,  and  moral,  we  are  called 
to  co-operate,  and  which  as  eternal  and  universal  Spirit 
we  are  moved  to  worship.  This  is  the  immanent  God — 
God  in  all  things  and  in  us.”  Again,  “God  is  immanent 
also  in  the  experience  of  man,  in  all  human  history,  in 
all  institutions  for  man’s  uplift — the  same  God  who  is  also 
above.*  That  is  the  way  that  Modernists  conceive  of 
Nature,  and  of  man  in  his  ascent  out  from  and  above 
physical  nature.” 

4.  Relativity  must  yield  its  quota  to  the  Modernist. 
This  is  applied  to  everything,  both  of  a  revelational  and 
institutional  order  embodied  in  Christianity,  making  all 
simply  to  bear  relation  to  the  time  in  which  it  was  given, 
from  a  study  of  which  certain  things  may  be  learned. 


*That  is,  also  in  some  sense  transcendent,  as  not  simply 
being  the  world,  as  it  were,  nor  absolutely  dependent  on 
the  world  for  expression  of  Himself,  which  would  be  mere 
pantheism,  but  free  and  perfect  in  Himself  before  ever 
the  world  was.  This,  it  is  admitted,  can  only  be  appre¬ 
hended  through  what  is  termed  some  self-disclosure  or 
positive  revelation  of  God;  for,  “Can  the  unassisted  in¬ 
tellect  of  man  attain  by  speculation  on  the  universe 
or  out  of  its  own  resources  any  secure  hold  upon  the 
transcendent  God,”  though  “it  be  granted  that  it  can 
attain  to  the  secure  conviction  that  in  some  real 
sense  God  exists  as  ^the  spirit  of  the  universe’  or  ‘the 
soul  of  the  world?’  ”  The  religious  Modernist,  since  he 
seeks  to  keep  some  notion  of  God’s  transcendency,  must 
have  some  sort  of  revelation  to  add  to  the  so-called 
“higher  pantheistic”  teaching  which  has  become  associated 
with  the  idea  of  the  Divine  immanence.  What  kind  of 
revelation  it  is,  and  its  worth  to  us,  we  will  examine  later; 
and  also  consider  in  our  last  chapter  what  is  really  true 
in  the  thoughts  of  immanence  and  transcendency. 


10 


Modernism 


errors  detected  in  the  light  of  present  progress,  what  ap¬ 
peals  to  the  modern  mind  retained,  what  does  not  stand 
its  historico-critical  research  discarded,  and  a  reconstruc¬ 
tion  of  belief  be  made  which  is  relatively  consonant  with 
the  20th  century,  as  that  of  the  New  Testament  was  with 
the  first  century. 

5.  With  the  foregoing  is  necessarily  associated  the  so- 
called  Historical  Method, defined  thus:  “Put  yourself  as 
far  as  you  can  at  the  point  of  view  of  those  in  any  age 
that  you  are  stud3dng.  See  as  far  as  possible  with  their 
eyes;  get  their  world-view.  How  did  any  institution  or 
any  body  of  laws  or  doctrines  come  about?  What  was 
the  character,  time,  place  and  needs  of  the  situation? 
And  what  did  they  mean  to  those  who  formulated  and  to 
those  who  accepted  them?  Their  past  forms  are  to  be 
estimated  by  their  contemporary  situations  and  problems. 
Their  solutions  are  to  be  recognized  as  upon  the  whole 
the  best  they  could  make  and  the  best  for  their  times.” 
That  is  the  value  of  Scripture  to  us!  As  a  sample  of  the 
results,  let  me  quote  further.  The  Modernist  “is  well 
versed  in  the  knowledge  of  the  first-century  Jewish  con¬ 
ceptions,  and  can  appreciate  the  way  the  early  Christian 
Jews  preached  the  gospel  to  their  fellow- Jews.  St.  Mat¬ 
thew  and  St.  Mark  who  voiced  the  way  St.  Peter  preached 
it,  did  not  speak  in  an  obsolete  dialect  or  in  a  foreign 
tongue.*  They  showed  that  Jesus  was  really  the  fulfil¬ 
ment  of  their  own  ideals, f  But  I  am  not  a  Jew,  and  do 

*  We,  of  course,  would  now  be  doing  so  should  we  speak 
in  this  day  as  they  did. 

t  We,  then,  are  to  show  He  is  the  fulfilment  of  our  ideal; 
that  is,  as  in  idolatry,  we  are  to  fashion  a  god  to  our  own 
liking. 


Introduction 


11 


not  need  to  be  argued  with  as  a  Jew.  Neither  am  I  a 
Hellenized  Jew.  St.  Paul  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  presented  Jesus  so  as  to  meet  the  needs 
of  the  Hellenistic  Jews.  Neither  am  I  a  Greek,  and 
greatly  as  I  esteem  the  way  the  gospel  was  presented  to 
the  Greeks,*  I  am  not  a  Greek.  Neither  am  I  a  Roman, 
and  highly  as  I  esteem  the  work  accomplished  by  a 
Romanized  form  of  the  gospel,  I  cannot  accept  it  as 
authoritative,  for  I  am  not  a  Roman.f  My  whole  world¬ 
view  is  different  from  that  of  the  Romans  as  it  is  from 
that  of  the  Greeks  or  the  Jews.  Neither  is  my  world-view 
like  that  of  the  mighty  men  of  Reformation  times.  If 
you  present  the  eternal  protean  Christ$  in  the  setting  of 
any  of  these  past  world-views  and  demand  my  accept¬ 
ance  of  Plim  in  the  form  there  given  as  authoritative  and 
final,  then  I  do  not  see  my  way  clear  to  enter  the  church. 


*  Which,  I  suppose,  was  by  John,  for  though  it  is  said 
the  Greek  Fathers  of  the  early  church  identified  the 
Jewish  Messiah  with  the  Greek  Logos,  *fit  nearly  all  be¬ 
gan  with  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  ‘In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word  {Logos).*” 

t  Some  of  these  Modernists  speak  of  Mark  as  the  Roman 
Gospel,  and  rather  satirically  say  that  the  epistles  present 
Christ  as  a  *^divine  official”  in  relation  to  atonement  and 
salvation.  This,  I  suppose,  refers  to  Him  as  the  one 
Mediator.  These  writers  began  this  idea  of  “officialism” 
because  it  suited  “the  thought  of  the  Greeks  and  the 
political  lives  of  the  Romans.  Our  world-view  is  different 
from  both  of  these  ...  We  would  fain  have  modern  con¬ 
ceptions  for  our  setting  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.” 

t  That  is,  one  assuming  any  aspect  you  like  to  give  Him. 
There  is  nothing  static  about  Him.  It  reduces  Him  to 
an  idol  of  your  own  imagining.  God  forbid! 


12 


Modernism 


I  would  like  to  see  Jesus  robed  in  conceptions  of  the 
modern  world-view.” 

6.  Another  foundation  stone  in  the  Modernist  structure 
is  the  science  of  Comparative  Religion.  This,  through 
“a  large  and  free  study  of  other  religions,”  has  given,  it  is 
said,  the  broad  and  divine  conception  of  how  God’s  reve¬ 
lation  has  been  given  in  the  past  to  children  of  all  ages 
and  climes. 

7.  Finally,  the  New  Psychology  plays  its  part  in  the 
work  of  reconstruction,  as  it  is  called.  It  is  the  science 
of  ‘‘self,”  of  how  and  what  we  feel,  largely  subordinating 
all  to  subjectivism,  and  destroying  the  reality  of  the 
objective,  that  which  is  outside  ourselves.  This,  intro¬ 
duced  into  the  religious  realm,  practically  makes  God  to 
be  what  I  as  an  individual  feel  or  conceive  Him  to  be  in 
my  own  consciousness. 

I  believe  I  have  fairly  summarized  what  is  basic  to  the 
whole  Modernist  position.  I  wish  now  to  briefly  state 
how  Christianity  is  affected  by  the  views  developed  from 
this  position.  Doubtless  my  reader  has  gleaned  already  a 
little  of  what  may  be  expected,  but  it  may  be  as  well  to 
state  it  in  a  categorical  manner. 

1.  The  Bible  is  not  to  be  read  as  an  infallibly  inspired 
book.  It  is  “the  literature,  or  a  collection  of  pieces  of 
the  sacred  literature,  of  the  Jews  and  the  early  Christians. 
It  is  a  record  of  the  religious  experience  of  many  men  in 
many  ages;  of  their  discovery  of  the  revelation  of  the 
divine  in  and  through  the  human  ...  It  might  be  added 
to  or  substracted  from  ...  It  stands  as  complete  as  do 
the  works  of  Homer  and  Plutarch  .  .  .  Suffice  it  to  say, 


Introduction 


13 


that  Bibliolatry  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  extravagant 
and  uncritical  devotion  to  it  as  literally  the  Word  of  God, 
apart  from  any  scientific  estimate  of  its  contents  is  now 
a  thing  of  the  past.”  The  New  Testament  fares  no  better, 
being  subjected  to  the  same  principles  of  criticism.  “But 
when  the  critical  work  is  done,  devout  souls  will  find  a 
new  New  Testament,  containing  a  livelier  word  of  God.” 

2.  Christ  is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  God.  That  would 
really  mean  His  dis-incarnation.  That  He  was  divine, 
was  the  best  interpretation  those  living  with  Him  could 
give  of  the  impression  He  made  upon  them.  And  what 
this  means  to-day  is  thus  expressed,  “My  faith  in  the  God¬ 
head  of  Jesus  means  that  I  believe  that  in  getting  to  know 
Him,  I  get  to  know  God  .  .  .  Never  does  He  cease  to  be 
a  man  for  me.  He  becomes  for  me  merged,  as  it  were  in 
God,  or  identical  with  God.  When  I  say  that  the  man 
Jesus  is  God,  I  mean  that  He  is  for  me  the  index  of  my 
conception  of  God.”  Christ  is  only  a  divinized  human  be¬ 
ing,  for  it  is  declared  He  simply  held  “in  His  human 
mind  and  will  as  much  of  God,  of  God  pure  (?)  as 
human  nature  at  its  best,  and  when  most  completely  su- 
pernaturalized,  can  be  made  by  God  to  hold,  whilst  re¬ 
maining  genuine  human  nature  still.  And  yet  this  same 
Jesus  (though  in  this  supreme,  heightened  sense,  the 

Christ)  remains  thus  also  truly  Jesus — that  is,  a  human 
body,  to  sense-stimulation,  to  history  and  institutions,  to 

succession,  time  and  space.” 

This  is  hailed  as  “a  statement  of  one  of  the  finest  and 
most  Christian  minds  of  to-day.”  This  is  taken  to  inter¬ 
pret  the  Incarnation,  which  is  nothing  more  than  “the 
conception  of  a  kinship  between  God  and  man.”  Again, 


14 


Modernism 


“The  Divinity  of  Christ  does  not  necessarily  imply  the 
Virgin  Birth  or  any  other  miracle.  The  Divinity  of 
Christ  does  not  imply  omniscience.'^ 

3.  Man  is  not  a  fallen  creature  but  a  being  of  continual 
upward  movement  in  the  process  of  his  creation.  He  has 
ascended  into  his  present  form,  and  “has  come  thus  far  in 
being  ‘created  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God.'  That 
is  the  archetypal  idea.  And  the  end  is  not  yet.  His 
creation  and  man’s  ascent  still  go  on,  ‘till  we  all  come  unto 
a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  ful¬ 
ness  of  Christ’  (Eph.  4:  13),  the  generic  man,  the  fully 
created  man.”  From  the  Pithed  to  Deity!  Why  not? 
Of  old  it  was  said,  “Ye  shall  be  as  God.”  But  listen! 
“Why  do  we  not  come  to  this  more  rapidly?  Here  comes 
the  old  enigma,  the  old  discoid  of  ^m.”  The  Modernist 
asks  and  answers  the  ques'jin.  “It  comes  not  with  a 
mythical  fall  of  the  first  Adam.  It  comes  rather  with  a 
sense  of  broken  unity  with  God.  It  is  not  a  positive  in¬ 
heritance  of  total  depravity.  It  comes  with  man’s  vision 
of  himself  as  he  ought  to  be.”  This  simply  means  that 
sin  is  any  coming  short  of  the  standard  man  may  erect 
for  himself.  This  will  of  course  be  according  to  the  stage 
of  his  evolution.  Man  gets  a  vision  of  what  he  ought  to 
be,  and  what  does  not  answer  to  this  is  sin.  “It  is  a 
state  of  man’s  consciousness.” 

4.  From  this  it  is  easy  to  see  what  salvation  means 
for  the  Modernist.  It  is  “the  getting  of  the  mind  of  the 
Master  into  one’s  soul  ...  So  far  as  we  have  the  spirit 
of  Jesus,  of  self-sacrifice,  of  service,  just  so  far  are  we  saved 
here,  and  just  so  far  we  shall  be  saved  when  we  pass 
into  the  kingdom  above.  Saved  from  our  sins  rather 


Introduction 


15 


than  from  future  punishment.”  There  is  no  need  for 
propitiatory  or  substitutionary  atonement.  Atonement 
is  rather  at-one-ment  achieved  through  growing  likeness 
to  the  Christ-image,  and  so  a  decreased  consciousness  of 
sin,  thus  effecting  its  removal.  Propitiatory  sacrifice  is 
^‘a  reversion  to  the  worst  ideas  of  pagan  sacrifice,  savoring 
of  the  heathen  temple  and  reeking  with  blood.” 

5.  The  meaning  of  death  and  judgment  must  be  radi¬ 
cally  changed  in  such  reconstruction  of  belief.  “To  the 
modern  Christian  the  old  doctrine  that  death  ends  all 
probation,  and  that  everlasting  torment  awaits  the  major¬ 
ity  of  men,  is  inconceivably  blasphemous.”  All  are  to  be 
drawn  “back  into  the  Father’s  house.”  “If  you  were  to 
ask  for  the  most  generic  belief  about  the  character  of  the 
future  life  for  sons  of  men,  I  should  answer  that  it  is  the 
same  that  I  have  for  the  end  and  purpose  of  this  life:  and 
that  is  the  further  education  and  discipline  of  the  sons  of 
men  into  the  image  of  the  Master  .  . .  That  is  the  essential 
meaning  of  the  doctrine  of  the  intermediate  state  of  the 
departed.  And  the  intermediate  state,  the  intermediate 
school,  that  is  the  highest  that  the  vast  majority  of  us 
will  be  fitted  to  enter,  so  slow  has  been  our  progress  in 
Flis  school  here  below.  Our  death  day  will  usher  us  into 
the  new  world,  just  as  we  are.  But  it  will  be  in  the  Fa¬ 
ther’s  universe,  somehow,  if  not  somewhere,  in  His  larger 
universe  of  ‘all  things  visible  and  invisible.’  .  .  .  We  shall 
need  further  education  and  further  remedial  punishment, 
or  purging  ...  It  is  a  state  for  refining  and  purifying. 
Few  of  us  shall  be  fitted  to  enter  heaven;  few  are  the 
saints,  the  pure  in  heart  who  shall  see  God.  That  will 
take  a  long  course  of  education  and  purgation  for  the 
most  of  us.”  Thus  it  is  said,  “the  Divine  Pedagogue  is 


16 


Modernism 


drawing  His  children  [i.  e.,  all  the  sons  of  men]  into 
mystic  union  with  Himself,”  through  many  circles  before 
they  reach  “the  highest  heaven.” 

All  this  is  simply  Christianized  Theosophy,  which  suits 
well  the  Christianized  pantheism  which  pervades  these 
teachings  of  Modernism.  I  need  not  go  further.  All  is 
manifestly  built  upon  a  naturalistic,  humanistic,  evolution¬ 
istic  basis.  Man’s  thought,  his  conceptions,  hence  his  wis¬ 
dom,  is  the  standard  of  knowledge  and  revelation.  God 
cannot  reveal  Himself  except  through,  and  as  circum¬ 
scribed  by,  the  imperfect  medium  of  His  creation  and 
creature-man.  There  is  nothing  final  or  static.  All  is 
ever  in  flux,  yet  ever  contributing  abiding  elements  of 
progress,  it  is  proudly  claimed.  “It  is  all  a  matter  of 
psychology  .  .  .  The  whole  process  is  the  way  the  mind 
works.” 

Listen,  again,  my  reader:  “What  is  God  like?  That  de¬ 
pends  upon  who  we  are,  and  at  what  period  of  life  and 
culture  we  are,  at  the  time  of  uttering  it  .  .  .  Grant,  then, 
that  man’s  thought  about  God  is  conditioned  by  his  stage 
of  culture  at  any  given  time,  and  we  can  trace  a  growth 
in  the  spirituality  and  intellectuality  of  the  conception 
of  God  in  all  vital  religions.  Let  us  grant  that  the  reli- 
ious  mind  is  naturally  anthropomorphic,  not  forgetting 
the  theomorphic  side  of  man’s  nature.  Then  we  may  say 
that  an  honest,  just,  merciful.  Fatherly  God,  is  the  noblest 
work  of  thinking  man  .  .  .  Again,  along  with  the  mental 
process  of  making  God  in  the  likeness  of  man,  there  goes 
the  process  of  making  Him  out  of  the  likeness  of  man;  the 
process  of  de-anthropomorphizing  his  mental  picture  of 
God,  as  he  proceeds  in  general  culture  .  .  .  The  history  of 
many  other  religions  may  be  best  studied  in  the  light  of  a 


Introduction 


17 


gradual  purification  and  elevation  of  their  conceptions  of 
God.  So  may  that  of  Christianity.  It  has  been  going 
on  through  the  Christian  centuries.  And  we  may  trace 
the  same  process  in  our  own  religious  conceptions.”  Con¬ 
sequently,  “we  have  to  validate  the  conceptions  of  people 
in  all  religions.  Yes!  surely  in  those  of  the  Greeks  and 
Persians,  and  others,  as  well  as  those  of  early  Jews. 
Christianity  need  not  be  envious.  Our  God  is  not.  The 
self-same  spirit  has  been  co-working  with  all  His  human 
children  in  all  stages  of  culture  in  every  age  of  the  world. 
Any  other  view  is  skeptical.  In  all  forms  of  experience, 
God  has  been  making  revelation  of  Himself  to  them.” 

The  grand  consummation  of  this  modern  reconstruction 
of  belief  is  the  doctrine  of  deified  humanity  and  hu¬ 
manized  deity,  in  effect  dethroning  God  from  His  trans¬ 
cendency  and  elevating  man  to  fill  the  vacancy.  We  are 
left  with  a  human  book  rescued  by  the  penetrating  light 
of  the  all-searching  eye  of  modem  science  from  the 
mists  of  mythology  and  the  dark  enshrouding  clouds  of 
misconception  which  prevailed  in  past  ages,  and  which 
threatened  to  carry  it  down  to  oblivion.  Masterly  and 
heroic  achievement!  A  human  Jesus,  whose  portrait  is 
now  presented  to  us  after  all  the  blurring  lines  and  gro¬ 
tesque  features  of  the  portraiture  made  by  those  Pales¬ 
tinian  disciples  and  Epistolary  theologians  are  removed, 
the  horrible  distortion  finally  effaced  by  the  patient  labor 
and  delicate  touch  of  modern  critical  art !  A  human  God, 
whose  character  and  features  I  can  only  learn  as  they 
become  gradually  disclosed  in  an  age-long  process  reach¬ 
ing  into  eternity.  It  is  not  man  made  in  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God,  but  God  being  made  in  the  image  and 
likeness  of  man! 


18 


Modernism 


I  believe  I  have  fairly  presented  the  case  of  Modernism. 
It  is  before  us  to  be  tested.  Let  us  examine  its  foundation 
and  superstructure.  Its  votaries  present  it  as  the  highest 
form  of  Christian  teaching.  The  concluding  chapter  of 
this  book  will  be  the  summa  summarum  of  our  iniquiry 
and  study. 


MODERNISM 

AND  ITS  RE-STATEMENT  OF 

CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE: 

IS  IT  THE  TRUTH  OF  GOD? 


CHAPTER  I 

Our  standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment; 

Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science? 

IT  is  plainly  fundamental  to  our  inquiry,  absolutely 
essential  for  the  testing  and  proving  of  the  views 
under  consideration,  to  determine  whether  we  have  a 
standard  by  which  to  weigh  and  measure. 

Let  this  be  reached  by  a  review  in  the  first  place  of 
modern  world-progress  and  its  effects  in  the  moral  and 
spiritual  realm;  then,  particularly  in  the  same  sphere, 
modern  scientific  developments  in  research  and  criticism; 
so  that  an  answer  may  be  given  to  the  question.  Is  hu¬ 
man  reason,  scientific  knowledge  and  research  a  court  of 
last  appeal  for  everything  religious — for  Christianity,  in 
fact?  If  the  answer  is  negative,  we  may  well  ask.  What 
then?  But  let  us  wait  until  we  have  before  us  the  results 
of  the  review  just  outlined. 

I 

It  is  stated  that  no  real  idea  of  progress  existed  in 
either  the  Greek,  Roman,  or  Hebrew-Christian  viewpoints. 


20 


Modernism 


“Gradual  change  for  the  better  was  not  supposed  to  be 
God’s  method  with  mankind;  the  future  was  not  conceived 
in  terms  of  possible  progress;  and  man’s  estate  on  earth 
was  not  looked  upon  as  capable  of  indefinite  perfecti¬ 
bility.”  The  early  Christians  contemplated  a  world- tri¬ 
umph  of  God,  which  was  not  progressive,  but  “cataclys¬ 
mic,”  like  a  “divine  invasion”  which  would  come  suddenly 
“like  the  flood  in  Noah’s  day,  like  the  lightning  flashing 
from  one  end  of  the  heaven  to  the  other,  like  a  thief  in 
the  night.  To  be  sure,  the  eager  expectation  .  .  .  grew 
dim”  because  the  church  moved  out  of  days  of  persecu¬ 
tion  into  scenes  of  worldly  acceptance,  power  and  glory. 
But  still  the  prevailing  thought  remained  that  “human 
life  and  history  were  static,  and  the  only  change  to  be 
anticipated  was  the  climactic  event.” 

To-day’s  world-view  is  completely  revolutionized.  This 
undoubtedly  is  largely  due  to  the  wonderful  impetus  given 
to  every  branch  of  life  through  scientific  invention  and 
knowledge  of  the  universe,  man’s  amazingly  increased 
control  of  natural  resources  and  power,  united  with  world¬ 
wide  progress  in  every  field  of  human  endeavor,  so  that 
the  outlook  is  ever  on  to  greater  triumphs,  whether  scienti¬ 
fic,  social,  or  governmental.  The  world  to-day  looks  for¬ 
ward  to  a  gradual  but  ever-increasing  growth  up  to  per¬ 
fection  of  the  highest  order.  This  rules  the  modern  con*- 
ception,  no  matter  what  the  apparent  set-backs,  from  the 
movement  of  nations,  physical  catastrophies,  or  moral  and 
social  breakdown.  The  ultimate  attainment  of  the  goal 
is  considered  certain. 

The  effect  of  this  looked-for  progress  is  seen  in  the 
pronounced  materialism  of  the  mass  of  men;  while  they 
complacently  estimate  how  far  off  God  really  must  be 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  21 


from  this  evolutionary  creation.  This  matters  little  since 
man  has  become  so  powerful  and  efficient.  Anything  like 
religion  is  of  negligible  importance.  Confidence  in  God! 
— What  is  the  need  of  it?  This  has  become  a  practical 
work-a-day  world,  and  the  mysticism  of  religion  is  a  by¬ 
gone,  good  enough  for  the  medieval  age.  A  little  of  it 
may  still  be  allowed  in  the  infancy  and  second  childhood 
of  human  experience;  but  otherwise  for  men  and  women 
of  this  cosmos,  the  forces  and  resources  of  which  they  are 
beginning  to  control  in  a  way  prophetic  of  a  race  of 
“supermen,”  it  would  be  wasting  time  over  the  puerility 
of  the  religionists. 

But  notwithstanding  all  that  is  said  for  this  wonder- 
producing  age,  men — though  riding  on  the  crest  of  this 
swiftly  moving  flood  of  human  knowledge  and  energy — 
have  experiences  which  call  a  halt,  though  ever  so  brief, 
and  which  cannot  fail  to  raise  questions  which  the  glitter¬ 
ing  prospect  of  world-progress  leaves  unsolved.  Catastro- 
phies,  individual  and  national,  come  with  great  sudden¬ 
ness.  Ruin  in  some  way  or  other  often  blights  the  fairest 
prospect.  The  greatest  plans  miscarry  at  times.  As 
science  increases  in  ability  to  cope  with  human  ills,  ills 
seem  to  multiply;  and  death’s  cold  hand  is  felt  just  the 
same,  and  nothing  warms  or  softens  its  irresistible  grasp. 
As  the  babe  comes  in,  so  the  man  goes  out,  no  matter 
what  pomp,  or  power,' or  glory  has  bedecked  him  in  the 
interim.  In  these  experiences  man’s  spiritual  nature  is 
touched,  awaking  questions  to  which  world-progress  is 
like  a  giant  Sphinx,  in  whose  presence  man’s  soul  finds 
an  awful  solitude.  No  answer  is  heard,  nothing  but  the 
echo  of  his  questioning;  no  vision,  but  the  spectre  of  his 
fear  which  he  may  have  thought  was  annihilated;  there 


22 


Modernism 


arises  a  doubt  of  his  boasted  unbelief,  if  he  has  been 
agnostically  inclined — these  thoughts  recoil  upon  him, 
sometimes  with  crushing  force.  For  this  colossus  of 
world-progress  which  so  many  worship,  made  up  of  some 
facts  and  laws  cognizable  by  man,  consists  only  of  phy¬ 
sical  things,  which  he  can  in  many  instances  explain 
— things  seen  and  external,  on  which  utmost  reliance 
is  placed;  but  there  are  things  internal,  not  seen,  yet 
potent;  spiritual,  not  material,  asserting  themselves  £imid 
all  this  progressive  achievement.  For  trouble  and  sin 
still  bring  shame  and  disaster.  To  this  our  hospitals, 
asylums,  penal  institutions,  and  the  blood-soaked  battle¬ 
fields  still  bear  witness.  Whatever  answer  in  the  way  of 
material  and  physical  betterment  is  given  by  world-pro¬ 
gress,  it  remains  an  outstanding  fact  in  modern  history 
that  scientific  knowledge,  power  and  advancement  have 
not  met  any  need  in  the  moral  or  spiritual  realm.  Life 
by  it  receives  no  just  interpretation  nor  explanation.  Be 
the  outward  circumstances  however  greatly  changed,  the 
inward  condition  remains  ever  the  same.  It  evidently 
does  not  fall  under  control  of  the  giant  hand  of  modern 
progress,  nor  the  universally  applied  “law”  of  evolution. 
A  standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment  cannot  be  found 
here.  There  is  a  vital  deficiency.  Must  a  cataclysmic 
divine  invasion  of  some  order  after  all  take  place,  both 
individually  as  well  as  world-wide,  for  an  adequate  answer 
to  be  given  to  all  aspects  of  world-condition?  Do  not 
answer  hastily,  perhaps  there  may  be  some  other  solution. 

II 

Perhaps  this  may  be  found  in  a  review  of  modern 
scientific  developments  in  research,  criticism,  and  theory, 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  23 

with  the  effects  produced  especially  in  relation  to  Religion 
and  Christianity. 

Let  this  review  be  given  under  two  main  heads: 

(a)  Darwinian  Evolution. 

(b)  Higher  Criticism. 

It  must  be  acknowledged  that  evolutionary  views  rela¬ 
tive  to  creation  still  await  actual  confirmation.  “Links” 
must  be  found  to  bridge  the  evident  “breaks”  in  Nature, 
if  the  process  of  evolution  in  unbroken  continuity,  and  not 
special  creations,  is  the  explanation  of  the  universe.  This 
it  is  taken  to  be  in  spite  of  the  lack  of  confirming  fact. 
Clearly  then,  in  evolution  we  have  merely  a  hypothesis, 
which  is  proposed  as  an  explanation  of  certain  observed 
phenomena  considered  as  simply  parts  of  a  constant  pro¬ 
gression  from  dead  matter  up  to  the  highest  forms  of 
life.  If  gaps  are  found,  as  indeed  there  are,  science  must 
bend  every  effort  to  fill  them.  If  this  cannot  be  done 
with  actually  known  facts  (and  these  are  not  forthcom¬ 
ing),  then  the  attempt  is  made  to  do  this  with  artificial 
material  in  order  to  give  some  semblance  of  unity  and 
continued  development  to  the  whole  scheme.  This  arti¬ 
ficial  filling  of  Nature’s  chasms  is  often  with  very  loose 
and  incohesive  material,  still  all  is  made  to  look  very 
imposing  when  brought  up  to  an  apparent  level  for  evo¬ 
lution,  the  genius  loci  of  this  world,  to  make  its  majestic 
strides  in  a  journey  of  several  hundred  thousands  of 
years  along  a  vista  so  immense  that  the  sight  of  ordinary 
mortals  quickly  fails  to  penetrate  the  clouds  of  mist 
which  soon  gather  over  its  seemingly  boundless  expanse. 

Darwin  began  what  has  now  been  made  the  foundation 
which  supports  the  structure  of  modern  science.  This 


24 


Modernism 


structure  still  needs  careful  watching,  especially  where 
it  rests  upon  those  artificiail  fillings  of  Nature’s  incon¬ 
venient  breaks  or  gaps;  but  our  scientific  builders  are 
adepts  at  shoring  and  buttressing  the  great  building.  Re¬ 
ligion,  too,  has  joined  hands  with  evolutionary  science, 
and  as  co-operation  proceeds,  and  progress  continues,  the 
result  is  expected  to  put  man  in  heaven  and  on  the  throne. 
The  tower  is  reaching  ever  higher,  though  it  may  take  a 
few  more  eons  to  reach  the  consummation. 

For  our  present  purpose,  let  it  suffice  to  say  that  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  is  a  correlation  of  certain  facts 
and  pure  speculation.  It  has  been  exalted  “to  the  rank 
of  a  dogmatic  scheme  of  creation.”  The  result  is  well 
given  in  the  following  extract.  This  abides,  even  though 
modifications  have  been  made  in  respect  to  the  original 
conclusions  presented  in  Darwin’s  books. 

^‘Nature  was  [is]  now  presented  under  a  new  aspect. 
Granted  force  and  matter  and  law,  including  living  matter, 
with  its  constant  tendency  to  variation  in  all  sorts  of 
directions,  and  the  whole  world,  with  all  its  infinite  forms, 
appeared  as  having  through  countless  ages  grown  of  itself, 
or  automatically.  The  exact  specific  form  of  each  kind  of 
plant  and  animal  was  now  represented  as  being  due,  not 
to  the  Creator  having  originally  so  made  it,  but  to  the 
fact  that,  among  the  infinite  varieties  of  forms  which  the 
profusion  of  nature  poured  forth,  one  form  at  each  stage 
proved  itself  the  best  adapted  to  survive,  and  in  the 
struggle  for  existence — which  is  due  to  nature  producing 
at  each  moment  far  more  specimens  of  each  kind  than  can 
survive— natural  selection  had  cleared  the  spaces  of  nature 
by  killing  off  all  the  innumerable  specimens  less  suited 
to  survive,  and  leaving  the  field  to  the  one  having  the  best 
survival  value.  The  appearance  of  design  is  thus  due, 
not  to  any  original  creative  act,  but  the  fact  that  out  of 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  25 


innumerable  hosts  of  things  produced  those  only  survived 
the  struggle  and  successfully  propagated  their  kind  which 
were  the  best  adapted  to  their  surroundings." 

The  original,  and  for  that  matter  the  continued,  effect 
upon  the  popular  imagination  is  found  in  the  acceptance 
of  this  theory  as: 

“A  doctrine  of  nature  making  itself — a  process  which, 
granted  the  initial  materials  and  laws,  seemed  to  explain 
itself  without  requiring  any  God  to  design  or  ‘make  it  up.' 
Man,  moreover,  appeared  as,  in  his  physical  structure, 
only  one  form  of  animal  life,  perfected  in  the  struggle 
for  existence,  especially  in  virtue  of  preeminent  mental 
qualities,  which  yet  (it  was  suggested)  were  only  de¬ 
velopments  of  the  mental  qualities  which  had  progres¬ 
sively  appeared  in  the  animal  world  generally.  And  in¬ 
stead  of  a  being  created  perfect,  in  the  full  glory  of  in¬ 
tellectual  and  moral  power  .  .  .  who  fell  from  his  first 
glory  .  .  .  man  now  appeared  as  starting  from  the  lowest 
depth  among  the  anthropoid  apes,  and  only  slowly  climbing 
up  from  among  his  animal  ancestry,  by  his  own  efforts 
through  long  ages,  to  a  dignity  such  as  he  now  enjoys.” 
This  “seemed  ...  to  destroy  not  only  the  argument  from 
design*  in  is  shortest  and  most  effective  form,  but  also  the 
Bible  doctrine  of  the  origin  of  man  and  of  his  fall,  which, 
in  its  turn  lay  at  the  root  of  Christianity.” 

This  along  with  the  changed  views  induced  by  the  study 
of  astronomy;  geology,  with  its  supposed  periods  of  mil¬ 
lions  of  years  reckoned  upon  the  fallacious  supposition 
that  the  present  rate  of  geologic  action  must  always  have 
been  the  same — that  is,  uniformitarianism,  a  necessary  by- 


*  This  had  been  the  great  pillar  of  support  in  the  argu¬ 
ment  for  belief  in  God  as  the  Almighty  Creator  and  ever- 
sustaining  Power  of  the  universe. 


26 


Modernism 


product  of  evolution;  and  then  biology;  all  seemed  to  com¬ 
bine  to  make  man’s  world  only  a  “speck  in  space,”  his  his¬ 
tory  “no  more  than  a  moment  in  time,”  and  “mankind 
only  one  phase  (why  more  than  a  passing  phase?)  in  the 
evolution  of  life — a  bubble,  as  it  were,  on  the  changing, 
flowing  river.”  The  effect  of  these  disclosures  is  not 
exaggerated  when,  it  is  said,  they  seemed  “to  obliterate 
God  behind  a  self-developing  universe,  and  to  reduce  the 
position  of  man  to  insignificance,  and  to  contradict  all  that 
view  of  his  history  which  the  Bible  had  enforced  or 
suggested.”* 

Now  though  there  has  been  a  large  recasting  of  evolu¬ 
tionist  teaching  by  Darwin’s  successors,  the  theory  re¬ 
mains  an  integral  part  of  all  modern  thought  and  study. 

Though  proof  has  not  been  found  in  the  great  depart¬ 
ments  of  Nature,  the  fact  that  it  appears  as  a  law  in  ob¬ 
servable  human  conditions  and  progress  has  been  made 
the  basis  for  claiming  that  it  must  pervade  every  sphere  of 
the  universe.  Thus  in  effect  there  is  a  return  to  the  ori¬ 
ginal  conclusions.  But  I  must  warn  my  reader  that  .he 
cannot  find  anything  like  unity  of  interpretation — ^what¬ 
ever  there  may  be  as  to  actual  facts — among  those  who 
dwell  within  the  courts  of  evolution,  unless  it  be  that  of 

f 

relegating  “the  Creator,  if  not  wholly  outside  His  Crea¬ 
tion,  at  any  rate  to  its  utmost  verge,  to  a  primordial  cell 
of  a  primeval  epoch.”  Confessedly  all  here  is  in  a  fluid 
state,  with  rocks  of  fact  protruding  here  and  there.  Dare 
we  walk  upon  this  water  without  fear  of  being  engulfed? 
Is  there  solid  footing  which  we  can  reach  after  a  rather 
doubtful  trip  across  this  evolutionary  ocean?  Chart,  com- 


*  ‘^Belief  in  God,’  Dr.  Charles  Gore,  pp.  8-12. 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  27 

pass,  and  a  good  reliable  craft  do  not  seem  at  hand.  If 
we  only  had  a  standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment  things 
might  not  seem  so  aimless.  The  Modernist  in  religion 
seems  to  try  to  meet  the  situation  by  supposing  God  to 
be  in  everything,  as  much  in  the  faulty  and  often  failing 
teachings  of  science  as  in  the  rhythmic  movement  of  the 
celestial  bodies.  He  is  the  most  trustful  creature  you  can 
imagine — “Billow- tossed  and  shifted  round  with  every 
wind  of  teaching, — in  the  craft  of  men,  in  knavery  suited 
to  the  artifice  of  error.”  I  mean  the  Modernist,  but  you 
might  as  well  say  it  of  his  God  too. 

Coincident  with  these  revolutionary  scientific  develop¬ 
ments  in  natural  subjects,  we  must  now  consider  what  are 
called  “the  startling  conclusions  of  literary  and  historical 
criticism,”  and  those  in  particular  which  relate  to  the 
Bible,  for  it  still  remains  the  great  basis  of  Christianity 
even  for  the  Modernist.  It  had,  in  the  popular  mind, 
already  received  a  heavy  blow  by  reason  of  the  widely 
accepted  dictum  of  the  evolutionists.  It  was  destined  to 
receive  another  from  a  different  quarter,  which  however 
derived  its  strength  from  what  we  have  been  speaking 
about. 

Because  of  its  importance  to  our  present  inquiry,  I  shah 
give  at  some  length  the  results  and  effects  of  the  Higher 
Criticism.  It  is  the  child  of  parents  too  closely  related, 
so  that  the  law  of  consanguinity  has  operated  with  the 
result  that  we  have  to  study  a  case  of  imbecility  in  this 
carefully  nourished  offspring.  First,  then,  we  must  speak 
of  its  parentage,  and  then  of  the  major  organs  by 
which  it  functions. 

Human  reason  was  set  up  as  the  standard  by  which 
to  judge  of  the  essential  and  non-essential;  and  as  far  as 


28 


Modernism 


the  Scriptures  were  concerned  they  contained  much  which 
the  cultured  mind  could  not  permit  to  embarass  it.  From 
this  naturally  followed  the  acceptance  of  the  scientific 
viewpoint  of  Evolution  and  uniformity  in  all  Nature  and 
history,  so  that  anything  like  the  intervention  of  the  super¬ 
natural,  and  hence  miraculous,  operations  or  events  could 
not  be  admitted. 

These  two  propositions  were  united  by  those  theologians 
who  assumed  the  task  of  effecting  accommodation  between 
Science  and  Religion  so  as  to  make  Christianity  acceptable 
to  the  modern  mind  and  its  viewpoint  as  revolutionized 
by  scientific  development.  Clearly  they  began  with  as¬ 
suming  the  dictum  of  Science  to  be  absolute,  and  its  find¬ 
ings  inerrant.  These  features  which  once  were  only  ap¬ 
plied  to  the  Bible,  were  now  taken  from  it  and  applied, 
if  not  in  so  many  words  yet  in  the  attitude  assumed,  to 
scientific  theory.  This  was  done  without  any  sufficient 
reason,  and  before  the  Bible  records  had  been  the  subject 
of  investigation  by  critical  science;  it  was  not  an  attitude 
taken  up  as  a  result  of  conclusions  formed  from  investi¬ 
gation,  but  the  position  taken  at  the  very  beginning,  and 
everything  was  made  to  fit  to  its  demands  no  matter  what 
the  consequences.  All  this  because  it  suited  the  rational¬ 
ism  and  naturalism  of  the  day.  This  is  a  priorism  indeed! 
And  Modernism  in  religion  is  built  upon  its  results  while 
loudly  prating  about  following  inductive  and  pragmatic 
methods.  Higher  Criticism  is  plainly  in  the  position  of 
suspecting  all  that  there  does  not  seem  good  reason  to 
accept  according  to  human  judgment  and  wisdom.  “It 
disbelieves  in  advance.”  The  result  is  that  the  Higher 
Critics  manifest  a  childish  credulity  in  themselves. 

Now  in  fact  the  position  resolves  itself  into  this:  Be- 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  29 

lieve  only  what  you  see.  That  leads  to  the  assumption 
that  all  things,  laws,  movements  and  life  have  been  and 
ever  shall  be  what  we  now  see  them  to  be,  or  learn  them 
to  be  by  the  study  of  observable  phenomena.  Therefore, 
there  has  not  been  from  the  beginning  any  special  acts  of 
creation  crossing  or  intruding  upon  the  now  observed  order 
of  creation.  Therefore,  the  supernatural  and  miracles  are 
refused,  and  any  claim  respecting  them  denied.  The 
theory  of  Evolution  is  made  the  dogmatic  explanation  of 
all  both  in  Nature  and  Religion.  I  do  not  see  miracles 
to-day;  hence  there  never  were  miracles,  for  they  would 
disturb  scientific  unity  and  order;  therefore  any  document 
giving  a  record  of  miraculous  events  is  in  so  far  mytho¬ 
logical,  and  what  may  be  credible  history  must  be  sifted 
out  and  separated  by  critical  acumen.  The  Bible  is  full 
of  the  miraculous.  It  must  be  submitted  to  “the  judicial 
inspection  of  human  reason.” 

The  child  being  born,  it  quickly  began  to  function;  and 
its  development  may  be  traced  in  successive  formularies, 
the  results  of  applying  which  constitute  the  basis  of  the 
Modernist  view  of  and  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 
Let  them  be  stated  in  order. 

1.  The  accommodation  theory.  This  defines  the  atti¬ 
tude  of  our  Lord  and  His  apostles  as  being  that  of  ac¬ 
commodating  themselves  to  the  ignorance,  errors,  and 
superstitions  of  their  times.  What  this  means  as  to  the 
character  of  Jesus,  and  in  fact  of  the  whole  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  is  not  hard  to  realize.  Such  accommodation  to 
popular  error  is  also  given  as  the  explanation  of  Scripture 
teaching  about  angels,  resurrection,  inspiration,  and  the 
Lord^s  second  coming. 

2.  The  theocratic  theory  by  which  the  supernatural  and 


30 


Modernism 


miraculous  in  the  Bible  is  assumed  to  be  the  product  of 
the  over-pious  imagination  of  the  Hebrews,  which  led 
them  to  attribute  everything  to  Divine  intervention,  and 
to  present  ordinary  events  in  the  light  of  theistic  enthu¬ 
siasm. 

3.  The  illusim  theory.  This  explained  everything  hav¬ 
ing  a  supernatural  aspect  in  the  Bible  records  as  being 
the  product  of  impressions  received  during  periods  of  in¬ 
tense  religious  occupation  or  experience,  in  other  words, 
imagination  run  riot. 

4.  The  late-records  theory.  By  this  is  meant  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  idea  (which  had  been  first  applied  to  the 
early  history  of  Greece  and  Rome)  that  records  came  into 
existence  only  long  after  the  supposed  events  had  oc- 
curred.  Hence  the  Biblical  writers  were  simply  putting  in¬ 
to  written  form  the  legends  or  traditions  of  their  people. 
This  necessarily  cast  a  mythical  cloak  over  all  Scripture. 
This  led  the  critics  to  adopt  two  general  conclusions:  (1) 
that  most  of  the  Old  Testament  was  made  up  of  tradi¬ 
tions  recorded  according  to  the  associations  of  the  age  in 
which  the  writer  lived;  (2)  that  these  ancient  historians 
(rather,  we  might  call  them  fabulists)  very  freely  placed 
‘‘speeches  or  discourses  in  the  mouths  of  historical  char¬ 
acters.”  This  theory  of  late  authorship  is  one  of  the 
great  pillars  of  Higher  Criticism. 

5.  The  fictitious  authorship  theory.  This  really  grows  out 
of  the  former,  and  means  of  course  that  Moses  did  not 
write  the  Pentateuch.  It  was  mostly  composed  in  the 
Josiah-Ezra  period.  Those  audacious  forgers  actually  put 
words  in  the  mouth  of  Moses  and  of  God!  In  fact,  this 
is  true  of  all  the  historical  books,  for  we  have  no  solid 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  31 

basis  of  history  beyond  about  800  B.  C.  It  is  assumed 
that  we  are  only  on  the  clear  ground  of  history,  and  be¬ 
yond  the  region  of  doubtful  questions,  when  we  deal  with 
the  prophets  of  Israel  from  Amos  to  Malachi.  Daniel,  it 
'is  asserted,  dates  some  300  years  later  than  Malachi.  Joel 
and  part  of  Zechariah  are  also  counted  some  hundred  years 
later  than  Malachi.  Isaiah  too  must  be  divided  as  to 
authorship,  since  the  latter  part  (chs.  40-66)  could  hardly 
be  written  before  the  days  of  Cyrus  who  is  mentioned  by 
the  unknown  author.  Hardly  a  book  escapes  this  treat¬ 
ment.  They  are  hewn  to  pieces  on  two  counts.  This  is 
done,  first,  by  the  theory  of  diverse  authorship  on  the 
ground  that  anything  like  predictive  prophecy  is  impossi¬ 
ble,  so  that  the  latest  historical  allusions  in  the  prophets 
must  be  the  factor  determining  the  time  of  writing.  Hence, 
Daniel  could  only  have  been  written  in  the  days  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  for  the  writer  gives  a  detailed  sketch 
of  history  up  to  his  days;  the  second  Isaiah  could  only 
have  written  in  or  after  the  days  of  Cyrus,  for  he  men¬ 
tions  him;  and  so  on.  In  the  second  place,  the  same 
result  is  obtained  by  the  theory  of  various  documents 
which  have  been  pieced  together  by  the  forgers  of  the 
Josiah-Ezra  period,  and  these  fictitious  productions  la¬ 
beled  “Moses,”  “Joshua,”  etc. 

6.  The  document  theory,  another  of  the  great  founda¬ 
tion  stones  of  Higher  Criticism,  I  have  just’  referred  to. 
The  writers  could  not  tell  of  anything  which  did  not  take 
place  in  their  days,  any  more  than  you  or  I ;  hence  if  they 
did  write  of  such  things,  some  of  which  must  have  hap¬ 
pened  a  hundred  years  or  more  before  their  time,  they 
certainly  must  have  used  “sources,”  even  as  you  and  I 
would  have  to  do.  These  were  either  myths,  legends,  the 


32 


Modernism 


folklore  of  antiquity,  or  original  codes  of  precept  and 
ceremony,  all  of  which  are  now  being  carefully  distin¬ 
guished  by  the  critics  and  duly  labeled — Jehovistic,  Elo- 
histic.  Priestly,  etc.,  etc.  Divine  inspiration  would  have 
ensured  the  writing  of  an  inerrant  record,  no  matter  how 
many  years  intervened;  it  could  have  enabled  the  prophet 
to  write  of  future  events,  no  matter  how  far  distant  from 
his  day.  But  that  would  be  supernatural  intervention, 
and  to  deny  this  these  theories  are  made.  They  are  easily 
riddled  if  given  a  little  detailed  consideration. 

7.  The  evolution  theory.  This,  in  its  application  to  the 
explanation  of  religion  and  its  literature,  appears  as  the 
crown  of  modern  Biblical  criticism.  Since  human  history 
alone  found  adequate  explanation  on  the  principle  of  EvO' 
lution,  so  with  Religion.  “Men  began  with  a  belief  in  the 
power  possessed  by  various  objects.  This  belief  was  then 
transferred  to  unseen  spirits.  By-and-by  these  spirits  were 
believed  to  be  ruled  over  by  mightier  spirits,  that  is,  by 
gods.  These  gods  were  worshiped,  and  then  in  the  long 
process  of  centuries,  came  the  supreme  development  of 
belief  that  there  was  one  supreme  God.  And  last  of  all 
came  the  final  form  of  faith,  that  this  supreme  God  was 
the  only  God,  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth.  If  you 
know  the  exact  date  when  this  belief  in  the  unity  of  God 
was  evolved — if  you  are  certain  that  it  did  not  come  into 
existence  before  the  Babylonian  exile — what  more  do  you 
need  to  enable  you  to  date  with  utmost  confidence  every 
book  of  the  Bible,  and  every  part  of  every  book?  Where- 
ever  you  find  clear  teaching  about  the  unity  of  God,  that 
section  could  not,  say  the  critics,  have  been  written  before 
the  exile.  Consequently  the  larger  part  of  the  Pentateuch, 
the  Psalms,  and  other  portions  of  Scripture,  are  at  once 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  33 

brought  down  to  the  time”  of  the  later  prophets.  On  this 
principle  “criticism”  becomes  an  easy  problem.  You  tabu¬ 
late  the  gradual  development  or  evolution  of  society  and 
religious  belief  from  its  rude  beginnings  in  savagery  up 
to  the  station  of  theistic,  theocratic  teaching.  Then  take 
the  Bible,  and  a  scissors;  cut  it  up  according  to  the  way 
its  several  parts  accord  with  the  different  stages  of  evolu¬ 
tionary  progress,  and  you  have  the  solution  to  the  time 
when  any  given  portion  was  written,  no  matter  what  ven¬ 
erable  name  may  have  been  attached  to  it  as  the  author 
— that  was  but  a  caprice  of  the  ingenious  makers  of  this 
literary  crazy  quilt.  If  the  critics  could  only  finally  agree, 
the  work  of  dissection  might  be  completed;  but  evidently 
the  process  of  evolution  must  work  out  a  little  more  so 
that  a  larger  measure  of  inspiration  shall  be  in  the  critics. 
This  will  doubtless  come;  to  doubt  it  must  be  the  rankest 
skepticism  in  view  of  their  monumental  achievements — 
and  then  dissection  completed,  recompilation  can  begin. 
When  this  is  finished  we  shall  have  the  bible  of  the  Man- 
God.  Only  I  trust  the  critics  will  be  warned  through  hav¬ 
ing  endured  such  travail-pains  in  bringing  this  book  to 
birth,  caused  by  the  innate  folly  of  those  ancient  redactors, 
compilers,  and  forgers,  not  to  put  the  various  documents 
and  fragments  together  in  groups  under  the  names  of  their 
most  illustrous  leaders  and  scholars — Astruc,  Eichhorn, 
DeWette,  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Driver — for  then  a  coming 
age  will  be  put  to  the  same  immense  labor  under  which 
they  themselves  have  staggered.  I  pray  them  to  spare 
posterity  this  harrowing  experience,  and  at  least  give  us 
a  piece  of  work  of  lasting  quality.  Surely  the  20th  cen¬ 
tury  can  do  this. 

These  are  the  general  principles  upon  which  Higher 


34 


Modernism 


Criticism  builds.  Can  we  find  in  them  and  the  results  of 
their  use  our  standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment? 

Let  results  be  summarized  before  going  further. 

1.  As  to  time  of  composition  or  compilation:  Parts  of 
the  Pentateuch  were  produced  about  800-700  B.  C.  Deu¬ 
teronomy  was  written  in  Josiah’s  days  (650-640  B.C,). 
All  the  other  historical  books  and  the  Poetical- Wisdom 
literature,  with  the  exception  of  scattered  fragments,  came 
into  existence  during  the  restoration  period  from  Ezra  to 
Malachi  and  later.  In  this  period  too  all  the  prophetic 
books  were  written.  The  time  problem  in  the  New  Test¬ 
ament  is  really  more  simple,  because  the  interval  at  most 
is  not  more  than  30-50  years  (50-100  A.  D.). 

2  As  to  authorship,  except  in  the  case  of  the  prophetic 
books,  and  that  only  in  a  general  way,  there  is  no  credi¬ 
bility  to  the  names  attached  to  the  books.  The  New 
Testament  authorship  is  more  generally  admitted,  with  a 
few  exceptions  in  the  Epistles. 

3.  As  to  history,  there  is  nothing  reliable  in  the  Old 
Testament  beyond  about  800  B.  C.  Anything  relating  to 
earlier  periods  is  only  traditional  and  legendary.  In  the 
New  Testament  it  is  chiefly  the  Gospels  and  Acts  which 
suffer  from  historical  criticism.  They  are  not  accounted 
reliable  historically,  except  in  the  most  general  way,  be¬ 
cause  of  the  great  intermixture  of  the  miraculous  which 
must  discredit  the  historicity  of  any  document.  This  is 
the  principal  reason  for  discarding  the  Old  Testament  as 
history  in  any  true  sense.  At  best  it  is,  can  only  be,  the 
description  of  ordinary  events  written  under  the  impulse 
of  pious  imagination  stimulated  by  intense  spiritual  feel¬ 
ing,  resulting  in  exaggeration.  So,  too,  with  the  Gospel 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  35 

narratives  of  the  wonder-working  of  Jesus.  These  things 
being  so,  the  epistles  cannot  help  but  be  discredited  also, 
for  the  writers  refer  to  these  very  records  and  these  events 
in  a  very  sober  and  deeply  reflective  manner,  making  them 
basic  to  their  doctrine. 

4.  As  to  character  of  teaching.  This  works  up  from 
“very  low  anthropomorphic  conceptions  of  God,  not  much 
above  that  of  some  contemporary  forms  of  paganism,”  and 
through  various  “commandments  that  we  now  esteem  im¬ 
moral”  to  which  is  attached  a  “Thus  saith  the  Lord,”  till 
from  Job  onward,  taking  the  books  in  the  order  given  in 
our  Bibles,  “we  have  men  of  vision;  preachers  of  right¬ 
eousness  in  a  lofty  sense;  uttering  the  voice  of  the  Lori 
much  more  in  accordance  with  the  New  Testament  con¬ 
ceptions,”  that  is,  I  suppose,  when  they  have  been  purged 
from  what  does  not  stand  the  test  of  human  reason  and 
foolishly  insists  upon  the  miraculous.  Rather  strange — 
is  it  not? — that  those  men  of  vision,  preachers  of  right- 
ousness,  uttering  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  should  so  abun¬ 
dantly  interweave  their  oral  and  written  testimony  with 
references  to  the  commandments,  events,  and  miraculous 
actions  recorded  in  the  older  books  (the  Pentateuch, 
Joshua,  etc.),  treating  them  as  fact,  not  myth,  as  indeed 
the  Scriptures  of  truth.*  It  must  be  manifest  that  to  be 
of  any  real  worth  historically,  morally,  and  spiritually,  all 
stands  or  falls  together. 

5.  The  Bible  then  is  not  infallible;  not  inspired,  in  the 
sense  of  being  literally  the  Word  of  God,  or  as  to  insure 
inerrance  of  matter  and  revelation;  not  a  final  and  com¬ 
plete  revelation,  but  simply  a  record  of  the  gradual  self- 


*  See  Table  of  References. 


36 


Modernism 


disclosure  of  God  through  the  minds  and  experiences  of 
some  of  the  brightest  and  most  religious  of  the  race,  which 
has  made  it  possible  for  the  evolution  of  revelation  to 
continue  through  the  great  minds  and  experiences  of  the 
succeeding  centuries,  especially  those  of  the  present.  And 
so  the  Divine  Spirit  is  still  leading  on  into  all  truth. 
Modernism  being  His  20th  century  production. 

This  is  called  “constructive  work,”  which  aims  “at  giv¬ 
ing  us  a  more  living  book,  even  for  the  purpose  of  de¬ 
votional  use.  It  gives  a  new  Bible,  rescued  from  the 
fetters  of  tradition,  and  from  the  fetters  of  infallibility.” 

Now  constructive  work,  generally  speaking,  involves 
some  features  of  destruction,  and  what  we  have  been  con¬ 
sidering  builds  upon  a  great  deal  of  it.  It  may  be  well 
to  take  a  look  at  the  destruction,  before  accepting  the 
new  construction,  to  see  if  after  all  it  is  to  be  counted 
as  such,  or  whether  it  is  not  more  like  what  would  result 
if  a  mad  bull  were  let  loose  in  a  treasure  palace. 

When  brought  face  to  face  with  what  is  claimed  to  be 
manifestly  of  God,  and  apparently  bears  the  evidence  of 
it,  then  these  critics  act  very  much  like  a  bull  facing  a 
red  banner — his  one  aim  is  to  tear  it  to  pieces.  Do  they 
not  act  in  relation  to  the  Bible,  in  the  same  spirit,  and  in 
the  same  way,  as  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  did  toward 
Jesus?  While  seeing  and  learning  of  His  mighty  works, 
hearing  and  being  informed  of  His  wonderful  teaching, 
silenced  by  His  wisdom,  themselves  unable  to  effectually 
refute  or  silence  Him,  they  deliberately  and  with  set  pur¬ 
pose  counseled  and  consummated  His  death,  because  of 
their  unbending  pride,  supposed  superiority  of  place  and 
human  authority,  and  rank  unbelief.  The  Lord  Jesus  was 
a  true  prophet  when  He  said,  speaking  of  future  events, 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  37 

“Verily  I  say  unto  you  that  this  generation  [faithless, 
perverse,  wicked  and  adulterous  He  defined  it  to  be,  and 
of  it  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  were  the  leading  re¬ 
presentatives  in  His  day,  as  the  Higher  Critics  are  in 
ours]  shall  not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be  done.”  A  wise 
man  seeks  a  shelter  from  a  bull  in  his  wild  rampage. 
Thank  God,  shelter  can  be  found  from  this  mad  bull  of 
Higher  Criticism,  and  be  found  too  in  that  which  it  vainly 
tries  to  destroy. 

But  we  were  to  consider  for  a  moment  the  supposed 
destruction. 

1.  Inspiration,  as  we  fondly  thought  of  it,  is  destroyed. 
God  has  not  acted  so  as  to  control  men  to  speak  and 
write  just  what  He  wished  made  known  as  a  revelation 
of  history,  doctrine,  or  Himself  in  character,  purpose  and 
activity.  If  He  did,  the  results  must  be  perfect,  inerrant, 
absolute,  giving  assurance  of  the  truth,  and  correctness 
of  the  whole  record  from  beginning  to  end.  We  thought 
the  Bible  was  such  a  book!  Criticism  has  proved  the 
contrary — has  it?  I  do  not  believe  it,  and  if  I  thought 
I  must,  I  could  not  join  with  the  Modernist  in  a  shout  of 
triumph,  but  must  turn  my  face  away  to  weep,  while 
still  my  hand  and  heart  would  cling  to  this  book  in  utter 
solitude  of  soul  and  with  crushed  spirit,  even  as  one 
stands  in  the  chamber  of  death  where  the  beloved  of  the 
heart  is  about  to  pass  from  the  scenes  of  life,  and  the 
voice  will  soon  be  raised  to  cry, 

“Oh  for  the  touch  of  a  vanished  hand, 

And  the  sound  of  a  voice  that  is  still.” 

This  book,  as  it  is  in  my  hands,  puts  the  hand  of  God 
upon  me;  it  is  His  voice  soimding  through  the  innermost 


33 


Modernism 


chambers  of  my  being;  it  is  full  of  the  living  God;  it  is 
“the  Word  of  God  which  liveth  and  abideth  forever” 
(IPet.  1:  23-25). 

2.  Predictive  prophecy  there  is  not,  could  not  be,  if 
inspiration  as  we  think  of  it  is  only  a  figment  of  the 
unscientific  mind,  which  of  course  it  is,  the  critic  says. 
Hence  the  Synoptic  Gospels  must  have  been  written  after 
A.  D.  70,  for  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  spoken  of  in 
them — ^words  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  who  died  A.  D. 
29.  Remember,  that  according  to  the  Modernist,  He  was 
not  more  than  a  man  in  whom  was  displayed  the  most 
that  is  divine  as  to  character  (not  power)  which  God 
could  put  in  man.  But  His  knowledge  was  limited  by  His 
circumstances  and  condition,  therefore  He  could  not,  any 
niore  than  anyone  else,  predict  an  event  40  years  in  ad^ 
vance  of  its  occurrence.  But  then  that  means  that  these 
Evangelists  were  liars.  They  have  practised  the  same 
forgery  that  the  Critics  say  they  find  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  Did  these  disciples  know  of  this  and  imitate  it,  or 
what?  Impossible,  it  was  never  known  until  “discovered” 
by  the  Higher  Critics!  But  think  of  these  men  trying  to 
make  us  believe  Jesus  said  such  things!  Does  it  not  mean 
that  no  confidence  can  be  placed  in  anything  they  have 
recorded,  except  it  be  the  bare  fact  that  such  a  person  as 
Jesus  really  lived  because  there  is  a  slight  confirmation  of 
this  from  outside  sources;  but  as  to  His  life,  teaching 
and  works,  it  is  left  to  the  critics  to  pick  out,  as  some 
one  has  said,  “the  needles  of  fact  from  the  haystacks 
of  fable”!  What  does  all  this  mean? 

3.  That  the  reliability  and  honesty  of  the  Bible  is  en¬ 
tirely  destroyed.  The  critics  have  been  guided  by  the 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  39 

master-hand  of  their  intellectual  father — he  was  a  liar 
from  the  beginning — in  the  sure  way  to  induce  the  pop¬ 
ular  feeling  that  the  Bible  may  best  be  cast  into  the 
rubbish  heap,  until  they  have  been  able  to  give  us  that 
“new  Bible’'  of  which  they  speak.  For  want  of  better 
knowledge  many  may  be  heard  saying,  “Who  wants  to 
read,  much  more  study^  a  book  which  the  intellectuals  of 
the  day  have  demonstrated  to  be  so  largely  mythical, 
full  of  traditions,  and  conceptions  formed  under  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  local  color  and  associations?” 

4.  Unity!  How  can  there  be?  The  idea  of  it  is  des¬ 
troyed  if  the  Bible  is  merely  such  a  miscellaneous  collec¬ 
tion  of  documents,  forgeries,  and  folklore.  And  the  ordin¬ 
ary  man,  not  otherwise  instructed,  would  not  think  it 
worth  while  to  try  to  find  it  in  such  a  compilation. 

The  disproof  of  all  these  baseless  speculations  we  may 
commence  from  our  last  point — unity. 

III. 

But  I  must  ask  my  reader  to  be  patient  while  an  an¬ 
swer  is  given  to  the  question  proposed  at  the  opening  of 
this  chapter. 

First,  will  any  one  contest  the  statement  that  human 
reason  is  only  partial  and  imperfect?  “One  has  only  to 
*'ecall  the  grotesque  fancies  that  have  from  time  to  time 
taken  hold  of  the  finest  and  brainiest  men  and  led  them 
into  the  grossest  delusions,  to  satisfy  himself  that  the  seat 
of  authority  does  not  lie  in  the  reason.  Not  that  we  are 
to  throw  reason  away  in  matters  of  religion;  for  while 
faith  is  ofttimes  above  reason,  it  is  by  no  means  contrary 
to  it.  The  voice  of  reason,  however,  is  not  to  be  con- 


40 


Modernism 


sidered  final  and  authoritative.”  In  what  we  have  been 
considering  it  is  made  the  court  of  last  appeal.  Can  the 
results  be  made  the  standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment? 

Secondly,  the  intervention  of  God  by  miracles  in  any 
form,  and  this  includes  inspiration  as  we  understand  it,  is 
absolutely  refused.  For  such  action  could  not  be  subject 
to  scientific  investigation.  In  its  presence  human  reason 
and  wisdom  would  have  to  stop  and  own,  “This  is  beyond 
me;  I  bow  before  the  finger  of  God;”  this  it  will  not  do. 
Therefore,  anything  which  cannot  be  explained  apart  from 
such  Divine  intervention  must  be  explained  away  or  des¬ 
troyed. 

I  build  a  house,  having  planned  its  apartments,  ar¬ 
ranged  and  established  its  systems  of  water-supply,  heat¬ 
ing,  lighting,  and  other  means  of  service  to  maintain  com¬ 
fort  and  convenience.  Having  done  so,  I  dare  not  enter 
this  house  unless  as  strictly  bound  to  leave  all  as  I  find 
it — change  anything,  check  or  correct  any  part  of  its 
established  system,  do  anything  contrary  to  the  rules  ori¬ 
ginally  established  for  the  operation  of  the  whole  struc¬ 
ture,  or  do  anything  not  provided  for  in  those  rules  though 
I  have  the  knowledge  and  power  to  do  it,  /  must  not. 
Such  a  conception  is  absurd,  utterly  ridiculous.  But  this 
is  the  way  in  which  I  am  to  conceive  of  God  in  relation 
to  creation — His  house  (Heb.  3:  4) — ^whether  in  the  na¬ 
tural  or  spiritual  realm,  if  the  supposition  that  all  that  is 
supernatural  or  miraculous  must  be  refused,  denied,  be¬ 
cause  any  known  laws  or  observed  facts  could  not  be 
used  to  explain  such  action  or  events.  It  is  vain  to  say,  as 
the  Modernist  does,  that  we  think  of  God  as  in  every¬ 
thing — “the  supernatural  in  the  natural.”  This  is  nothing 
more  than  saying,  to  use  my  illustration  again,  that  I  am 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  41 

in  the  walls,  floors,  pipes,  fixtures,  etc.,  of  the  house  I 
have  built,  and  coming  into  it  I  cannot  be  more  than  any 
or  all  of  its  various  parts.  Well,  is  it  so? 

Now  Modernism  is  built  on  modem  scientific  criticism, 
which  in  turn  is  founded  upon  those  two  pillars  of  sup¬ 
port  which  we  have  been  considering.  Can  it  be  our 
standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment!  No!  With  such 
foundations.  No!  For  the  domain  of  science  must  be 
acknowledged  as  very  limited.  It  studies  facts,  deduces 
laws,  and  propounds  theories.  The  latter  aspect  of  its 
activities  comprises  by  far  the  greatest  part  of  the  stmc- 
ture  it  builds.  These  theories  rise  out  of  the  cup  of  fact 
that  man  is  able  to  present,  and  expands  from  a  little  as¬ 
cending  vapor  into  a  great,  seemingly  mighty,  but  never¬ 
theless,  vapory  figure  which  takes  within  its  flowing  robes 
the  whole  universe  and  God  Himself.  Sometimes  a  hand 
shakes  the  cup,  and  the  motion  seriously  distorts  the 
form  of  the  figure  because  it  is  so  attenuated.  The 
dreamy  contemplation  of  it  leads  to  forgetfulness  of  the 
cup.  It  is  better  to  hold  on  to  the  cup  and  drink,  even 
if  only  a  little  of  its  contents,  for  as  soon  as  you  take  it 
up,  the  mental  aberration  produced  by  the  mystic  figure 
is  broken,  the  vapor  quickly  disappears.  Discard  theories, 
and  the  criticism  founded  upon  them,  assimilate  facts, 
recognize  laws  deduced  from  them,  and  science  fills  its 
proper  role  as  man’s  servant  instead  of  becoming  his  god. 

Science  cannot  originate — create.  It  must  have  some¬ 
thing  put  into  its  hand — matter,  already  acting  laws,  life. 
It  may  look  at  them,  study  them,  handle  them,  it  is  never 
safe  at  any  other  occupation.  When  it  becomes  specula¬ 
tive,  it  runs  wild.  Let  it  be  satisfied  with  the  correlation 
of  facts  and  laws.  The  seven  general  principles  of  Biblical 


42 


Modernism 


criticism  just  considered,  are  they  laws  deduced  from 
facts?  Nay,  but  theories  built  upon  absolutely  untenable 
propositions,  before  ever  the  supposed  facts  were  tabu¬ 
lated.  Hence  the  facts  they  claim  to  present  are  only  the 
fictitious  progeny  of  their  fictitious  parentage.  None  of 
their  conclusions  are  tenable  when  the  actual  facts  are 
considered.  It  may  be  as  well  to  give  an  example  or  two. 
It  will  enable  us  to  say,  “No,’’  over  again  with  real  em¬ 
phasis  as  an  answer  to  our  question.  Volumes  might  be 
written  along  these  lines,  dealing  with  scientific  vagaries 
both  in  the  sphere  of  nature  and  of  the  Bible.  We  limit 
ourselves  to  the  latter.  It  is  our  special  interest  at  present. 

Charges  of  gross  mis-statement  and  startling  exaggera¬ 
tion  are  supported  by  such  evidence  as  the  following.  The 
difference  in  price  paid  by  David  for  the  threshingfioor  of 
Oman  is  produced — 2  Sam.  24:  24  gives  50  shekels  of 
silver;  1  Chron.  21:  25,  600  shekels  of  gold.  Here  is  a 
fatal  blunder,  bad  history;  both  cannot  be  correct!  Will 
the  reader  please  turn  to  the  passages  and  note  that  two 
transactions  are  involved  and  that  different  things  are 
purchased.  Both  are  correct,  Samuel  speaks  of  the 
threshingfioor  and  oxen.  Chronicles  of  the  place  of  the 
threshingfioor — the  whole  site  of  the  future  Temple-build¬ 
ings.  Compare  also  2  Chron.  3:1. 

Another  example.  1  Kings  5:11  represents  Solomon  as 
giving  to  Hiram  20  measures  of  oil,  whereas  2  Chron.  2: 
10  says  20  thousand  baths.  What  is  the  use  of  arguing 
that  the  Bible  is  reliable?  Wait!  Notice  that  in  Kings  it 
is  stated  to  be  to  Hiram  for  his  household;  in  Chronicles  it 
says,  “I  will  give  to  thy  servants  the  hewers  that  fell 
timber.” 

These  instances  are  rather  ludicrous.  I  might  greatly 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  43 

increase  the  number  of  such  criticisms.*  Suffice  it  here 
to  say  that  excavations  in  Palestine,  Egypt,  Assyria,  and 
the  study  of  ancient  monuments  with  their  interesting  in¬ 
scriptions,  along  with  the  rich  unfoldings  gathered  from 
a  study  of  the  abundant  papyri  discovered  in  various 
places,  all  have  united  to  re-establish  the  reliability  and 
honesty  of  the  Bible,  to  explode  many  of  the  supposed 
verities  of  criticism,  yea,  shake  into  ruins  the  whole  struc¬ 
ture  which  Higher  Criticism  has  reared  upon  its  supposed 
incontrovertible  principles.  It  does  not  jurnish  us  with 
our  standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment. 

IV. 

Let  us  now  take  up  the  task  of  presenting  the  evidence 
which  disproves  these  baseless  speculations,  drawing  this 
from  the  Bible  itself,  so  that  we  may  realize  its  abiding 
superiority  to  all  tests,  it  in  reality  being  the  divine  tester 
of  all  (Heb.4:  12, 13). 

I  begin  by  stating  two  definite  propositions.  They  are 
not  hypothetical.  They  are  the  result  of  much  experience 
and  great  labor  in  the  study  of  this  Book,  devoted  to  it 
for  many  years  by  some  of  the  brightest  minds,  the  most 
acute  and  analytical  intellects,  men  versed  in  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  life,  science  and  philosophy.  The  propositions  are 
these: 

1.  There  is  nothing  within  the  Book  itself,  though  at 
times  there  may  seem  to  be  things  which  are  contradictory 
of  each  other,  which  will  fail  of  satisfactory  solution  from 
a  careful  study  of  the  Book. 


*  See  Appendix, 


44 


Modernism 


2.  There  is  nothing  outside  of  the  Book  itself  really 
contradictory  of  the  facts  of  nature  or  history  which  it 
presents,  or  of  the  doctrines  it  teaches. 

It  follows  that  nothing  in  it  will  be  found  in  real  con¬ 
flict  with  anything  which  may  be  observed  or  discovered 
in  any  department  in  which  human  knowledge  and  wisdom 
are  rightly  exercised.  In  the  past  many  things  seemed  to 
be  contradictory,  but  recent  research,  exploration,  and 
discovery  have  verified  the  truthfulness  and  reliability 
of  the  Bible.  What  remains  of  a  character  seemingly 
contradictory  of  or  in  conflict  with  the  state  of  present 
knowledge  may  safely  be  left  for  solution  by  further 
developments  of  the  same  order,  as  permitted  by  the 
good  hand  of  God. 

These  things  being  true  of  the  Book — notwithstanding 
the  very  long  period  covered  by  its  production,  the  great 
variety  of  circumstances  and  changing  scenes  connected 
wdth  those  past  centuries,  the  great  difference  in  charac¬ 
teristics  and  associations  of  the  writers,  and  the  immense 
variety  of  matter  contained  in  it — ^we  assert  the  following 
features  as  belonging  to  it  in  its  entirety: 

1.  It  is  a  perfect  organic  unity. 

2.  It  is  interlocked  in  testimony. 

3.  It  is  prescient. 

4.  It  is  inspired  by  God  throughout. 

5.  It  is  revelation  from  God,  and  of  God. 

6.  It  is  inerranty  therefore  absolutely  reliable  and  honest. 

7.  It  is  complete  in  its  present  form.  In  it  finality  is 
reached. 

A  book  thus  presenting  unity  of  design  in  its  every  part, 
and  having  woven  throughout  it  such  features  as  I  have 


Our  Standard:  Is  it  the  Bible  or  Science?  45 

just  enumerated,  must  be,  it  is,  the  only  acceptable  stand¬ 
ard  of  knowledge  and  judgment. 

These  features  we  will  consider  in  detail,  and  seek  to 
give  with  them  a  brief  intimation  of  the  unbounded  scope 
of  the  subject  matter  presented  in  the  Bible — it  is  a 
divine  Encyclopedia.  Careful  study  of  it  in  all  its  parts 
is  an  absolute  necessity  for  the  right  understanding  of  all 
things  spiritual,  ethical,  and  scientific.  How  could  it  be 
otherwise?  It  is  Godls  hook.  He  knows  all  from  the  be¬ 
ginning  to  the  end. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Bible;  what  it  is. 

The  plan  to  be  followed  in  considering  this  subject 
has  been  outlined.  Its  first  part  is  the  unity  of 
the  Book. 

I. 

I  purpose  to  consider  this  unity  from  the  viewpoint  of 
its  general  plan  and  theme.  This  may  be  strengthened 
by  seeing  how  certain  of  the  more  prominent  and  leading 
features  of  the  whole  book  fit  into  the  general  plan,  and 
are  not  isolated  in  the  course  of  history,  nor  could  they  be 
either  removed  or  transplanted  without  dislocating  the 
whole.  Further  strength,  may  be  found  in  considering  spe¬ 
cial  parts  of  the  book,  not  only  in  their  relation  to  the 
whole,  but  by  detailed  study  to  find  that  the  same  pur¬ 
pose  pervades  them  which  governs  the  formation  of  the 
general  plan.  Thus  whether  our  study  is  general  or  speci¬ 
fic  the  same  unity  is  found  throughout.  The  proof  is 
really  overwhelming  to  any  one  who  will  give  it  fair  con¬ 
sideration. 

Whatever  the  critics  may  say  as  to  dates,  there  is  no 
real  question  as  to  an  extensive  separation  in  time  between 
the  various  documents  or  books  of  Scripture.  Even  ad¬ 
mitting  “sources,”  such  as  they  claim,  it  is  evident  how¬ 
ever,  that  their  beginnings  must  have  been  in  the  days  of 
Moses.  Manifestly  it  is  a  collection,  a  compilation  of 
material  into  various  and  distinct  books,  relating  to  differ¬ 
ent  ages,  having  their  own  special  characteristics;  the 


The  Bible;  What  it  is 


47 


work  of  many  writers,  using  different  styles,  adopting 
different  languages,  giving  various  revelations  and  forms 
of  teaching,  some  setting  aside  the  old  to  establish  the 
new,  and  yet  doing  so  in  a  way  which  maintains  perfect 
unity  of  purpose,  and  only  the  more  contributing  to  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  understanding  of  His  mind. 

Now  as  to  the  unity  of  general  plan,  we  may  consider 
various  lines  which  go  to  form  it,  and  which  are  main¬ 
tained  throughout.  I  can  only  suggest  to  you  a  few 
examples. 

The  truth  concerning  man’s  fall  forms  an  integral  part 
of  the  whole.  There  is  no  change  in  tlie  testimony  of  the 
writers  as  to  this,  through  all  the  changing  centuries  of 
this  Book’s  composition,  whether  we  read  Genesis  or  the 
New  Testament  epistles.  The  ideas  of  evolution,  or  of 
progress  out  of  the  plainly  stated  condition  through 
social  humanitarian  uplift,  and  the  growing  effort  to 
follow  the  best,  does  not  enter  into  its  composition, 
though  the  wise  and  learned  of  those  early  ages  were 
not  without  such  notions,  even  as  those  of  the  20th 
century.  Once  we  are, clear  that  the  Holy  Spirit  guided 
in  its  composition,  this  becomes  very  significant,  for  He 
is  omniscient,  and  must  know  all  the  thoughts  of  men. 
He  has  not  incorporated  them  in  this  respect,  but  has 
given  us  His  own  teaching  in  this  Book. 

There  is  perfect  unity  in  the  witness  given  as  to  the 
being,  nature,  power,  and  ways  of  God  displayed  in  the 
dispensations  which  fill  the  course  of  time.  In  no  respect 
is  there  anything  to  compare  with  it  in  the  traditions  or 
philosophies  of  the  ancient  or  modern  world.  In  fact  the 
latter  with  all  its  boasted  progress  and  achievement  has 
nothing  new  to  give;  its  religious  'Modernism  is  nothing 


48 


Modernism 


more  than  the  appropriation  of  certain  things  in  Scrip¬ 
ture  which  suit  the  fancy  of  its  votaries  combined  with 
certain  human  notions  arising  from  essentially  non-chris- 
tian  conceptions,  and  the  whole  dressed  up  in  its  own 
fashion  and  passed  off  as  the  product  of  20th  century 
wisdom  and  inspiration. 

Whether  it  be  the  record  of  God’s  dealings  with  individ¬ 
uals,  tribes  of  people,  nations,  or  empires;  His  law  in  its 
moral  precepts  or  ceremonial  requirements;  His  promises; 
His  government  as  read  in  the  light  of  specific  acts  or 
general  processes;  all — ^whether  in  relation  to  the  past, 
present  or  future,  embracing  the  whole  period  of  time,  as 
emerging  from  and  merging  into  eternity — all  presents 
a  unity  of  conception  as  to  the  moral  nature,  attributes, 
and  purposes  of  God.  The  whole  is  set  forth  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  history  of  man  and  his  responsibility  to 
God.  Along  with  this  we  get  God’s  way  with  man  under 
various  forms  of  testing  until,  man’s  sinful  ruin  and  help¬ 
lessness  being  demonstrated,  the  final  display  of  the  eter¬ 
nal  purpose  comes  out  in  Christ,  giving  the  knowledge  of 
a  perfect  cycle  of  new  relationships  which  have  their  exist¬ 
ence  only  through  the  Son  and  His  work,  and  established 
in  Him  without  fear  of  change.  This  is  not  evolution; 
but  special  creation  and  fixity  and  finality  of  species, 
whether  we  consider  the  first  man  Adam  and  his  race,  or 
“the  second  Man”  and  “Last  Adam”  with  His  race. 

There  is  unity  in  the  Book  in  presenting  mankind  as 
divided  into  two  such  races,  which  never  coalesce,  but 
remain  ever  sharply  distinguished  and  contrasted.  Thus 
the  history  of  Cain  and  Abel  can  become  a  text  for  John, 
as  Abraham’s  life  is  for  Paul. 

The  unity  of  the  Book  is  witnessed  in  its  consistent 


The  Bible;  What  it  is 


49 


testimony  to  the  truth  concerning  Christ,  as  the  Object 
of  all  the  divine  counsels,  the  Head  of  all  blessing  and 
glory — the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  Man.  In  many 
ways,  by  means  of  various  figures,  in  dim  foreshadowings, 
in  the  brighter  light  of  prophecy,  and  finally  in  the  full 
light  of  perfect  accomplishment,  His  blessed  Figure  is  dis- 
cernable  through  all  its  parts,  binding  it  in  a  blessed  unity. 
Facts  of  history,  types  and  ceremonies  of  the  most  ela¬ 
borate  order,  various  persons,  kings,  priests,  prophets,  are 
all  made  to  render  their  quota  of  testimony  to  Him. 

There  is  unity  in  the  presentation  of  Israel  as  the 
geocentric  nation,  and  its  land  as  the  centre  of  all  earthly 
blessing  and  government,  with  its  city  and  temple  the 
shrine  for  all  nations;  and  this  is  the  more  remarkable 
since  the  New  Testament  supplants  Israel  with  the 
Church,  which  is  however  pre-eminently  heavenly,  while 
yet  affirming  Israel’s  restoration  and  final  replacement  as 
to  what  is  earthly;  the  Church  being  given  its  predestined 
heavenly  station. 

By  no  stretch  of  the  imagination  can  the  Bible  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  the  kind  of  book  man  would  write.  In  his 
judgment  it  too  often  elaborates  what  is  trivial,  while  what 
he  would  count  of  supreme  importance  is  passed  over  in 
a  few  words.  Its  balance  of  treatment  is  radically  differ¬ 
ent  from  what  human  reason  and  wisdom  would  dictate. 
This  of  itself  argues  for  special  purpose  and  plan,  while 
the  fact  that  one  inspiring  mind  knew  the  end 
from  the  beginning,  whose  plan  and  purpose  thus  stand 
revealed  to  us,  alone  adequately  explains  the  phenomena 
presented  in  it. 

For  example,  why  are  the  early  ages  from  creation  to 


50 


Modernism 


the  formation  of  great  nations  compressed  into  ten  chap¬ 
ters  in  Genesis — a  period  when  Egypt  was  rising  to  pre¬ 
eminence,  the  Pyramids  built,  the  foundations  of  Meso¬ 
potamian  empire  being  laid,  and  the  once  supposed  my¬ 
thical  empire  of  the  Hittites  holding  sway — whilst  the 
history  of  one  man,  Abraham,  is  spread  out  in  such  detail 
through  fourteen  chapters?  We  know  this  is  not  as  man 
would  have  written  the  record.  And  those  early  chapters 
are  being  proved,  as  exploration  and  excavation  continue, 
such  an  epitome  of  history  as  no  merely  human  mind 
could  produce.  But  why  so  much  attention  to  the  lonely 
Hebrew?  The  New  Testament  gives  the  answer,  showing 
that  in  God’s  mind  Abraham  was  the  father  of  the  great 
family  of  faith,  a  spiritual  race,  called  out  of  and  se¬ 
parated  from  the  remainder  of  mankind,  with  which  Christ 
is  put  in  immediate  relationship. 

Much  more  might  be  said.  You  can  take  up  the  in¬ 
dividual  books,  alone  or  in  their  respective  groups;  or  you 
can  take  up  parts  of  these  books,  separate  psalms,  bits  of 
history,  or  special  ordinances,  and  find  that  the  Book 
“is  the  harmonious  whole  of  all  God’s  thoughts,  of  all  His 
ways  with  regard  to  man,  and  of  His  determinate  purpose 
as  to  the  Christ,  and  as  to  man  in  Him;  wherein  also  is 
set  forth  the  revelation  of  what  God  is,  of  man’s  respon¬ 
sibility,  and  of  what  God  Himself  has  done  for  man,  as 
well  as  of  the  new  relationships  with  God  into  which  man 
enters  through  Christ; — a  Book  which  reveals  what  God 
is  in  His  moral  nature,  and  the  dispensations  in  which  He 
glorifies  Himself  in  the  sight  of  the  heavens  and  their  in¬ 
habitants;  which  lays  bare  the  secrets  and  the  state  of  the 
human  heart,  and  at  the  same  time  unveils  before  it  things 
invisible;  which  begins  where  the  past  touches  eternity. 


The  Bible;  What  it  is 


51 


and  leads  us  on  through  a  development  and  a  solution  of 
all  moral  questions  to  the  final  point  where  the  future 
merges  in  eternity,  according  to  God.” 

From  beginning  to  end  this  Book  renders  a  consistent 
testimony:  to  Creation  as  God’s  special  action,  to  the 
result  of  which  He  ever  remains  transcendent,  while  also 
immanent;  to  the  jail  ,of  man  and  its  awful  consequences; 
to  one  way  alone  of  acceptable  approach  to  God  and  the 
reestablishment  of  relationship,  that  of  sacrifice — not  some 
form  of  this  that  I  can  make,  but  that  of  Another,  this 
being  found  in  Christ  and  His  cross;  to  grace  as  a  great 
divine  principle,  finding  expression  from  the  very  first,  but 
ever  growing  in  its  unfolding  until  consummated  in  Christ 
and  His  work;  to  faith,  as  the  only  principle  of  abiding 
relationship  with  God  from  the  first  hour  of  man’s  fall; 
to  government  in  this  world,  largely  staged  in  connection 
with  Israel,  but  reaching  out  also  in  the  widest  way,  in 
all  of  which  we  learn  God’s  character.  His  full  control. 
His  use  of  evil  with  blessing  always  in  view.  Coupled 
with  the  revelation  of  these  things  are  the  experiences  of 
God’s  people  during  the  whole  course  of  the  dispensations, 
in  which  Christ  also  takes  His  place  in  the  due  time  and 
perfectly  suited  way.  The  truths  of  judgment,  salvation, 
and  righteousness  receive  harmonious  treatment.  Life, 
death,  and  hope  are  interpreted  in  the  only  way  which 
satisfies  the  heart  and  conscience,  since  no  discordant 
voices,  but  perfect  harmony  falls  upon  the  listening  ear. 

The  Book  is  before  us  as  a  perfect  organic  unity,  in 
which  every  part  fits  with  every  other,  in  mutual  ministra¬ 
tion  making  it  a  living  entity.  But  I  must  leave  this 
most  interesting  theme  to  give  brief  consideration  to  our 
other  points. 


52 


Modernism 


n. 

In  the  second  place  I  have  said  this  Book  is  interlocked 
in  testimony.  By  this  I  mean  that  one  part  is  locked  to 
another  by  reason  of  direct  or  indirect  reference  so  that 
the  parts  become  mutually  dependent.  We  have  just  con¬ 
sidered  unity  in  theme.  This  might  be  called  unity  in 
structure.  It  becomes  a  strong  witness  to  its  homogeneous 
character.  This  gains  in  force  when  consideration  is  given 
to  the  element  of  time,  the  different  characters,  temper- 
ments  and  social  positions  of  the  writers,  who  have  been 
permitted  to  show  their  individuality  in  their  work,  and 
yet  never  run  counter  to  the  great  themes  of  the  Book,  but 
whatever  the  age  in  which  they  lived,  whatever  their  edu¬ 
cation,  or  lack  of  it,  all  is  blended  together  perfectly. 

The  first  thing  to  notice  is  the  way  the  New  Testament 
is  interlocked  with  the  Old.  Although  about  400  years 
intervened,  yet  the  seemingly  loose  threads  are  taken  up 
and  woven  together  to  what  is  manifestly  a  finished  de 
sign.  It  is  estimated  that  the  book  of  Revelation  alone  has 
more  than  two  hundred  references  to  thoughts  and  events 
mentioned  in  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Writings.  In 
Romans,  chapters  nine  to  eleven  inclusive,  the  apostle 
makes  reference  to  every  book  of  the  Pentateuch;  to 
Hosea;  Isaiah,  both  to  the  first  part,  and  also  to  that 
which  is  attributed  to  the  great  “unknown,”  as  the  critics 
speak,  all  referred  to  as  from  Isaiah  by  Paul;  the  Psalms; 
Joel;  Nahum;  1  Kings;  and  David,  quoting  Psalm  69. 
In  the  same  Epistle,  chapter  4,  he  refers  to  David  and 
Abraham,  while  in  Galatians  the  history  of  the  latter  be¬ 
comes  the  main  support  of  his  argument.  1  Cor.  10  builds 
upon  the  wilderness-history  as  given  in  the  Pentateuch. 


The  Bible;  What  it  is 


53 


The  whole  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  filled  with  references 
to  the  Old  Testament.  James,  Peter,  and  John  make  re¬ 
peated  reference  to  many  of  its  events.  The  Acts  and 
Gospels  are  likewise  very  full  in  quotation  or  allusion  to 
all  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  Acts,  I  believe, 
this  appears  as  one  of  the  special  features  of  the  book. 
It  is  the  great  historical  link  between  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testaments.  This  is  a  very  general  statement  of  the  evi¬ 
dence;*  yet  it  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  two  great 
parts  of  the  Bible,  though  quite  distant  in  many  respects, 
are  so  absolutely  linked  together  that  to  mutilate  any  one 
part  cannot  fail  to  affect  the  whole.  It  is  like  a  body  of 
many  members,  each  in  its  place  and  discharging  its  func¬ 
tion.  The  whole  stands  or  falls  together. 

Now  as  the  manifest  unity  of  theme  and  thought  which 
w^e  first  considered  is  an  overwhelming  argument  against 
the  patchv/ork  or  document  theory  of  the  critics,  so  too 
the  careful  review  of  the  evidence  just  submitted  gives 
the  answer  to  the  late  records  and  fictitious  authorship 
theories.  Moses  is  credited  with  the  books  that  bear  his 
name — the  Pentateuch.  Isaiah  is  allowed  the  whole  of  his 
book,  and  Daniel  likewise.  These  are  principal  cases  only. 
The  attempted  mutilation  of  most  of  the  books  along  this 
line  of  criticism  is  quite  extensive,  but  is  answered  by  the 
fact  that  the  Lord  and  His  apostles  owned  the  whole  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  we  have  it  to-day,  the  same  indeed  as  in 
His  own  time.  Moreover  He  and  they  treat  the  compila¬ 
tion  as  having  the  character  claimed  by  it  and  for  it — 


*  See  Table  of  References  in  which  a  very  full  display 
ot  the  evidence  is  given.  This,  however,  is  not  given  as 
being  complete. 


54 


Modernism 


that  of  being  the  Word  of  God.  And  they  recognized 
and  insisted  upon  authorship  as  found  in  the  Book  itself, 
whether  it  be  Moses,  the  Prophets,  or  the  Psalms.  To  be¬ 
lieve  Moses  and  his  writings,  the  Lord  declared,  was  es¬ 
sential  to  believing  Him  (John  5:  45-47).  “He  wrote  of 
Me’^  in  Deuteronomy  as  well  as  his  other  books,  yet  the 
critics  say  Deuteronomy  was  written  in  Josiah’s  day  and 
the  other  books  perhaps  a  little  earlier  or  later.  Who 
speaks  the  truth?  Christ  or  the  critics?  Moses  lifted  up 
the  serpent,  gave  the  law  and  circumcision  (John  1:  17; 
3:  14;  7:  19,  22).  Paul  in  his  utterances  as  given  in  the 
Acts,  and  in  his  teaching  in  Romans  and  Corinthians,  re¬ 
fers  to  Moses  as  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  Lord 
opened  the  understanding  of  the  disciples  to  the  scriptures 
— Moses,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms  (Luke  24:  27,44, 
45).  Was  it  all  an  imposture?  Was  He  accrediting  a 
spurious  compilation,  a  mass  of  forged  documents  inter¬ 
woven  with  myths  and  folklore?  His  sincerity  and  truth¬ 
fulness  are  bound  up — and  those  of  the  apostles  too — 
with  the  Old  Testament  as  we  have  it  in  our  hands.  To 
destroy  its  reliability  and  honesty  is  to  destroy  His  moral 
worth  and  excellency.  The  hands  of  the  critics  are  as 
wicked  in  this  work  of  mutilation,  as  were  those  hands 
which  laid  hold  of  the  Word  Himself,  bound  Him,  and 
then  crucified  Him. 

As  the  New  Testament,  with  the  character  of  the  Lord 
and  His  apostles,  is  interlocked  with  the  Old  Testament 
in  its  entirety  as  we  now  possess  it,  even  so  may  we  see 
how  the  parts  of  the  Old  itself  are  interlocked.  For 
example,  throughout  the  prophetical  books  there  is  con¬ 
stant  reference  to  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  estimated  that 
there  are  over  1500  such  references,  and  that  Deuter- 


The  Bible;  What  it  is 


55 


onomy,  which  the  critics  have  so  persistently  attacked,  is 
referred  to  over  600  times.  Now  this  is  conclusive  proof 
that  the  Pentateuch  must  have  been  in  existence  for  some 
time  prior  to  the  great  prophetic  era,  and  that  also  it  must 
have  been  well  known  generally,  for  how  otherwise  could 
the  people  have  understood  the  prophetic  messages?  This 
opens  up  a  large  field  of  interesting  study,  too  extensive 
to  take  up  now  beyond  making  reference  to  Amos  who, 
along  with  Hosea,  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  earliest  of 
the  prophets,  being  dated  by  the  critics  between  900-800 
B.  C.  There  are  upward  of  80  references  traceable  in  his 
prophecy  to  the  Pentateuch,  showing  full  familiarity  with 
the  Law,  both  in  its  moral  and  ceremonial  aspects,  and 
with  history  as  recorded  by  Moses.  The  prophecy  be¬ 
comes  unintelligible  apart  from  the  acknowledgement,  not 
only  of  the  priority  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  also  that  it 
must  have  been  generally  known  and  read.  What  then 
becomes  of  the  contention  that  the  Pentateuch  was  the 
product  of  the  Josiah-Ezra  period  (650-500)?* 

The  Psalms  furnish  the  same  kind  of  evidence. 

Now  if  the  Pentateuch  be  of  such  production  as  the 
critics  claim,  they  must  give  us  some  explanation  of  how 
the  temple  and  its  services  originated,  for  then  they  had 
not  the  record  of  the  Tabernacle  and  its  service  to  guide 


*As  may  be  noticed,  the  critics  vary  largely  as  to  the 
dates  assigned  to  the  Pentateuch;  all  however  attempt  to 
deny  that  Moses  wrote  any  of  it.  Our  Lord  said,  “Moses 
.  .  .  wrote  of  me”  (John  5:  46).  Whom  then  shall  we  be¬ 
lieve? — These  uncertain,  varying  critics,  or  Him  who  is  the 
Truth?  He  further  asks  the  pertinent  question:  “If  ye 
believe  not  his  (Moses’)  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe 
my  words?” 


56 


Modernism 


them.  They  are  not  slow  in  telling  us  that  the  whole 
Tabernacle  story  was  invented,  being  copied  from  the 
temple  as  then  known.  This  at  once  destroys  the  relia¬ 
bility  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

To  presume  that  what  we  get  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
is  the  result  of  a  literature  of  the  exilic  period,  that  the 
keeping  of  feasts  and  regulations  of  worship  and  relation¬ 
ship  were  foisted  upon  the  people  by  designing  forgers 
instead  of  being  the  revival  of  age-long  custom,  funda¬ 
mental  to  their  place  and  character  as  God’s  people  from 
the  beginning,  is  an  absurdity  worthy  only  of  infidel  cri¬ 
ticism.  But  that  is  what  Higher  Critical  theories  really 
mean. 

But  I  must  turn  to  the  third  point. 

HI. 

This  Book  is  prescient.  It  gives  knowledge  of  events 
before  they  take  place.  Predictive  prophecy  is  an  inte¬ 
gral  feature  of  the  Bible.  The  critics  entirely  or  very 
largely  deny  this.  Therefore,  they  take  the  passage  in 
any  book  which  has  the  latest  historical  connection  as  de¬ 
fining  when  it  or  that  particular  part  of  it  was  written.  I 
have  already  referred  to  the  results  of  this  in  relation  to 
Isaiah,  Daniel,  and  the  Gospels.  Let  us  see  what  is  the 
actual  evidence. 

The  Lord  said  Moses  wrote  of  Him,  Peter  confirms  it, 
quoting  from  Deuteronomy.  Must  we  not  then  go  the 
critics  one  better  and  say  Deuteronomy  must  have  been 
written  during  the  Lord’s  lifetime?  Peter  again  says, 
“Yea,  and  all  the  prophets  from  Samuel  and  those  that 
follow  after,  as  many  as  have  spoken,  have  likewise  fore¬ 
told  of  these  days.”  Listen  to  Paul,  “I  continue  unto  this 


The  Bible;  What  it  is 


57 


day  .  .  .  saying  none  other  things  than  those  which  the 
prophets  and  Moses  did  say  should  come:  that  Christ 
should  suffer,  and  that  He  should  be  the  first  that  should 
rise  from  the  dead,  and  should  shew  light  unto  the  people, 
and  to  the  Gentiles.”  But  the  prophets  knew  that  what 
they  wrote  was  prescient,  predictive  (1  Pet.  1:  10-12). 

We  might  fill  many  pages  with  the  facts  relating  to 
fulfilled  prophecy  (whether  concerning  individuals,  Israel, 
Gentile  nations,  or  empires),  a  subject  full  of  deepest  in¬ 
terest  ;  but  we  must  limit  ourselves  at  this  time  to  mention¬ 
ing  some  of  those  in  the  Old  Testament  which  have  been 
fulfilled  in  the  Christian  era.  Thus  the  element  of  pre¬ 
diction  is  established  beyond  all  date  controversies.  The 
same  proof  is  deducible  from  the  New  Testament. 

Messianic  prophecy  opens  up  a  vast  field  for  study.  It 
pervades  the  entire  Old  Testament,  indeed  it  dominates 
it,  and  hence  becomes  a  strong  argument  for  the  unity  of 
the  Book.  In  whom  does  it  find  its  concentrated  fulfil¬ 
ment?  In  Jesus,  who  appeared  several  hundred  years 
after  the  last  writer  had  laid  down  his  pen.  And  the  New 
Testament  is  framed  upon  the  truth  of  this.  Its  whole 
structure  is  luminous  with  the  glory  of  it.  Hence,  as  I 
have  intimated,  it  interlocks  with  the  Old  Testament. 

But  Christianity  in  its  ethical,  spiritual  and  universal 
aspects  lies  embedded  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  predic¬ 
tive  element  running  all  through.  This  could  not  be  known 
apart  from  the  light  of  fulfilment  which  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  throws  upon  it.  What  does  all  this  mean  as  to  the 
character  of  these  scriptures? 

In  the  prophecy  of  the  70  weeks  (Daniel)  we  read  of 
Messiah  cut  off,  having  nothing,  and  to  the  end  war  and 
desolation.  Here  is  prophecy  fulfilled  and  in  course  of 
fulfilment. 


58 


Modernism 


The  words  of  Hosea  3 :  4  did  not  find  complete  accom¬ 
plishment  until  after  Christ,  while  the  people’s  condition 
to  this  very  hour  corresponds  exactly  to  the  prophet’s 
words. 

Study  Amos;  does  he  describe  simply  what  he  saw 
either  accomplished  or  in  process  of  accomplishment,  or 
is  he  distinctively  predictive  in  very  much  of  his  matter? 
Who  can  doubt  the  latter  as  we  read  history?  But  it  is 
so  with  all  the  prophets  and  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  his¬ 
torical  books  are  no  exception.  I  simply  mention  Amos 
because  of  the  early  date  to  which  the  critics  assign  him. 

I  earnestly  press  the  evidence  of  the  all-pervading  pre¬ 
dictive  element  in  the  Scriptures,  both  Old  and  New  Test¬ 
aments,  but  by  no  means  think  of  prophecy  being  ex¬ 
clusively  of  this  nature.  Its  character  is  that  of  spiritual 
insight  as  well  as  foresight.  This  gives  moral  and  spiritual 
weight  to  all  its  fore-telling.  There  is  the  keenest  analysis 
of  the  people’s  condition  in  every  respect,  and  this  in 
relation  to  God  as  well  as  their  surroundings,  and 
withal  He  is  very  largely  revealed  in  His  majesty, 
holiness,  righteousness,  judgment,  yet  in  mercy  and  re¬ 
deeming  purposes  of  grace,  while  the  prophetic  vista  ex¬ 
pands  to  scenes  of  blessing  and  glory  which  have  never  yet 
been  realized.  Coupled  with  all  this  we  have  very  definite 
predictions  fulfilled  after  shorter  or  longer  lapses  of  time 
which,  as  being  thus  confirmed  by  actual  accomplish¬ 
ment,  to  which  the  history  of  the  ages  upon  which  we  may 
now  look  bears  eloquent  witness,  become  at  once  the  moral 
assurance  of  fulfilment  for  still  unfulfilled  prophecy  and 
the  confirmation  of  the  moral  truth  woven  into  the  prophe¬ 
tic  ministry. 


The  Bible;  What  it  is 


59 


IV. 

Is  this  Book  with  its  perfect  unity  of  theme,  its  perfect 
structure,  its  very  evident  predictive  character,  inspired 
by  God?  Immediately  another  question  arises:  What  is 
inspiration?  But  in  the  light  of  what  we  have  considered, 
even  in  our  very  brief  and  partial  way,  can  anything  short 
of  Divine  intervention  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  all 
the  phenomena  which  Scripture  presents  for  our  study? 

The  Christian  may  boldly  challenge  even  the  20th 
century  Modernists  to  produce  a  book  measuring  even  a 
finger  length  to  its  standard.  They  may  ruthlessly  tear 
it  to  pieces,  thereby  weakening  its  moral  grip  on  many, 
and  thus  accomplish  more  work  for  the  enemy  of  God 
and  man  than  was  ever  done  by  efforts  to  exterminate  it 
by  murder  and  bonfire,  or  Papal  bull.  This  will  only 
turn  to  their  condemnation,  for  the  Book  itself  shall  judge 
them.  One  answer  alone  can  satisfy  the  question  of  any 
honest  investigator  of  the  evidence — this  Book  must  be  in¬ 
spired  of  God.  It  absolutely  transcends  man’s  powers. 
Its  source  and  cause  must  be  outside  of  him,  no  matter 
though  the  human  element  is  clearly  manifest,  which  is 
freely  admitted.  It  is  one  of  the  glories  of  the  Book. 

Every  theory  upon  which  the  critics  build  is  a  direct 
blow  at  inspiration.  They  refuse  the  idea  of  it,  and  de¬ 
cide  the  question  before  investigation.  All  their  investiga¬ 
tion  then  turns  to  attempt  to  prove  their  gratuitous 
decision. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  throughout  the  Old  Testament 
we  have  it  declared,  “Thus  saith  Jehovah,”  or  “The  word 
of  Jehovah  came,”  or  “Jehovah  spake”  or  “said.”  The 
writers  never  stop  to  explain  or  propound  some  theory  as 


60 


Modernism 


to  how  it  came  about.  They  manifest  no  interest  or  con¬ 
cern  as  to  any  questions  that  might  be  raised.  They  sim¬ 
ply  affirm  that  it  is  so,  and  the  message  given  must  be  the 
proof  of  their  claim.  It  is.  This  is  surely  as  it  should 
be.  Can  you  imagine  a  man  who  is  conscious  of  being 
laid  hold  of  by  God  to  speak  His  very  words  with  all  the 
expression,  feeling,  and  individual  character  he  possesses, 
stopping  under  such  mighty  impulse  to  explain  the  modus 
operandi?  hnpossible!  His  business  is  to  deliver  the 
inspired  words.  They  accredit  him  as  nothing  else  could. 
It  is  the  same  with  the  New  Testament  writers. 

The  Lord  and  the  apostles  speak  of  all  Scripture  as  in¬ 
spired,  as  God’s  word,  whether  it  is  the  Old  Testament  or 
their  own  words.  If  it  is  not  true,  where  can  you  match 
such  blasphemous  audacity?  Even  the  Higher  Critics 
have  not  gone  so  far  yet  as  to  prefix  their  dissertations 
with  ^‘Thus  saith  the  Lord,”  though  the  Modernists  have 
taken  a  step  in  that  direction  when  they  claim  the  leading 
of  the  Spirit  of  Truth  for  all  present-day  scientific  devel¬ 
opment  and  teaching  along  with  their  own  reconstruction 
of  belief. 

Zacharias  and  Peter,  men  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit, 
declare  God  spake  by  the  mouth  of  His  holy  prophets 
since  the  world  began  (Luke  1:  70;  Acts  3:21;  1  Pet.  1: 
12;  2  Pet.  1:  21). 

After  all,  what  is  meant  by  inspiration?  It  is  that  all 
Scripture  consists  of  God-given  words  uttered  by  those 
chosen  for  this  work.  This  does  not  mean  that  everything 
recorded  is  an  expression  of  the  mind,  will,  or  purpose  of 
God,  for  that  would  include  the  words  of  Satan,  of  wicked 
men,  and  of  holy,  yet  failing  saints;  but  it  does  mean  that 
God  gave  these  words  to  the  writers,  for  in  many  cases 


The  Bible;  What  it  is 


61 


they  record  that  of  which  they  could  have  no  personal  or 
acquired  knowledge.  How  otherwise  could  they  write  of 
the  past  and  the  future  as  they  do?  How  could  they 
write  as  Moses,  for  example  does,  of  creation  and  early 
history?  — and  do  so  in  a  way  which,  while  presenting  the 
facts,  also  serves  to  illustrate  the  great  principles  of  all 
God’s  ways,  and  gives  us  not  only  the  beginnings,  but  in 
the  very  record  of  them  foreshadows  the  final  consumma¬ 
tion  of  Divine  purposes  which  even  yet  await  accomplish¬ 
ment,  furnishing  abiding  instruction  for  every  age  and 
condition.  “The  things  written  aforetime  were  written 
for  our  learning.”  The  Book  itself,  whether  in  the  history 
it  gives,  in  its  prophecy,  or  even  its  genealogies,  con¬ 
tributes  to  the  manifest  purpose  of  moral  and  spiritual 
instruction  as  to  man  and  to  God  in  every  dispensation. 
Being  therefore  a  selection  of  significant  facts  which  are 
absolutely  true  as  stated,  but  which  by  no  means  are 
presented  as  giving  one  connected  history,  but  are  brought 
together  without  any  fictitious  setting,  so  as  to  present 
a  perfect  exhibition  of  God’s  ways  in  relation  to  His  pur¬ 
poses,  and  to  man  in  responsible  relation  to  Him  whether 
as  His  people  or  otherwise,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  of 
application  in  all  ages  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  blessing 
of  man — I  say  the  Book  itself  is  a  miracle  of  the  first 
magnitude.  The  external  history  of  its  production  and 
preservation  partake  of  the  same  character.  What  but 
another  miracle,  that  of  Divine  Inspiration,  can  really 
explain  the  whole  phenomena?  This  inspiration  is  God’s 
entrance  into  the  human  instrument,  to  take  up  for  His 
own  service  all  the  characteristics  of  the  instrument,  not 
repress  them,  but  make  them  the  vehicle  of  HJs  own  ex* 
pression  in  human  words  given  to  them  to  speak  or  write. 


62 


Modernism 


guiding  them  perfectly  in  the  use  of  whatever  sources  of 
information  to  which  they  refer  in  certain  historical  con¬ 
nections,  but  all  made  use  of  in  accord  with  the  Divine 
Mind.  Thus  it  is  that  all  Scripture  is  like  an  organism 
instinct  with  life — the  life  of  God,  for  He  has  breathed  into 
it  the  breath  of  life,  so  that  it  is  “the  word  of  God  which 
liveth  and  abideth  forever.” 

V. 

The  next  point  is  that  this  Book  is  a  perfect  revelation 
of  God  and  from  God.  The  fact  that  all  is  inspired  does 
not  involve  the  conclusion  that  all  is  the  revelation  of 
God,  though  manifestly  all  is  made  to  contribute  to  this 
end,  even  the  wickedness  of  man  and  devil.  But  this 
perfectly  inspired  Book  gives  to  us,  has  contained  in  it, 
the  perfect  revelation  of  God.  This  is  simply  from  God, 
since  all  is  inspired  by  God.  Now  to  have  God  revealed 
to  us  in  such  a  way  as  not  only  to  impress  us  with  creative 
majesty  and  almighty  power  which  we  might  be  led  up  to 
by  the  voice  of  creation,  but  so  as  to  lay  hold  of  those 
internal  and  hidden  powers  of  our  being — soul  and  spirit, 
we  must  have  just  such  a  Book  as  the  Bible  placed  in  our 
hands.  The  reason  for  this  is  evident.  Man  has  never 
been  able  to  reveal  Him.  His  conception  of  God  is  mea¬ 
sured  by  his  own  lust  and  degradation.  Profane  history 
and  Scripture  bear  witness  to  this  solemn  fact.  Whatever 
record  we  have  of  man’s  search  after  God  in  the  exercise 
of  his  own  wisdom  there  remains  an  unfilled,  unfillable, 
void.  The  Bible  alone  corrects  all,  and  fills  all — perfectly 
satisfies  as  the  resting-place  for  soul  and  spirit.  Compare 
it  with  what  you  will,  where  can  you  find  such  a  revela¬ 
tion  of  God?  It  is  not  that  things  are  stated  about  Him 


The  Bible:  What  it  is 

/ 


63 


simply,  that  His  attributes  are  made  known — His  power, 
holiness,  righteousness,  mercy,  grace,  love,  in  every  pos¬ 
sible  way  and  manner — but  that  the  impress  of  His  per¬ 
sonality  is  stamped  upon  it.  I  quite  admit  that  this  must 
be  realized  through  the  work  of  God’s  Spirit  and  on  the 
principle  of  faith,  for  the  natural  man  does  not  receive 
the  things  of  God.  Nevertheless  just  such  a  revelation 
is  there  in  this  volume  of  inspiration. 

VI. 

In  the  sixth  place  I  have  said  this  Book  is  inerrant, 
hence  absolutely  reliable  and  honest  throughout.  It  could 
not  be  otherwise  in  the  light  of  what  we  have  considered. 
Can  you  conceive  of  a  Book  perfect  in  unity  as  to  theme 
and  structure,  speaking  the  language  of  omniscience—- 
for  there  is  nothing  in  the  mind  of  God  or  of  man  as 
to  the  past,  present  or  future  which  is  hid  from  the  Mind 
which  rules  throughout  in  its  composition — which  is  di¬ 
vinely  inspired,  and  full  of  divine  revelation,  exhibiting 
divine  knowledge  and  love,  otherwise  than  characterized 
by  infallible  accuracy?  I  am  aware  there  are  numerous 
objections  raised  to  this  in  seeming  discrepancies  in  differ¬ 
ent  accounts  of  the  same  events,  or  in  the  records  of  words 
spoken  or  quoted,  or  in  the  statement  of  matters  chrono¬ 
logical  or  natural,  as  the  rising  and  setting  of  the  sun. 
But  such  arguments  must  proceed  from  the  supposition 
that  we  have  all  the  necessary  data  before  us  to  judge 
of  the  questions  at  issue.  This  by  no  means  can  be 
sustained.  Most,  if  not  all,  of  such  cases  are  suscepti¬ 
ble  of  explanation  from  a  careful  study  of  all  the  evi¬ 
dence,  and  when  this  for  the  present  seems  impossible, 
very  often  another  form  of  accuracy  than  that  of  mere 


64 


Modernism 


literalism  is  found,  in  that  there  is  divine  suitability 
in  the  seeming  variations  with  the  special  object  or  pur- 
pose  in  view  in  the  different  accounts. 

VII. 

I  come  to  the  last  point.  It  is  that  this  Book  as  a 
divinely  inspired  revelation  from  God  is  complete,  ai^d 
therefore  final  in  its  present  form.  This  precludes  any 
idea  of  progressive  revelation  such  as  Modernism  delights 
to  dream  of,  and  dogmatically  assert.  Paul  tells  us  it 
was  given  to  him  “to  complete  the  Word  of  God.’^  Not, 
of  course,  write  its  last  book;  but  give  its  crowning  re¬ 
velation  of  the  Eternal  purpose,  beyond  which  it  is  mani¬ 
fest  no  other  New  Testament  writer  ever  goes.  These 
writers  do  not  promise  any  further  revelation  or  inspired 
communications.  In  fact  they  make  their  own  words  the 
abiding  standard  and  test  for  all  else.  Indeed,  we  know 
that  in  the  latter  time  of  their  ministry  they  were  faced 
with  what  boldly  claimed  to  be  further  divine  revelation 
and  to  constitute  the  full  knowledge.  We  have,  thank 
God,  their  divinely  authorized  answer  to  all  such  philoso¬ 
phic  dreams,  with  which  both  the  filthiness  of  flesh  and 
spirit  are  found  associated  in  their  development,  making 
it  still  more  clear  that  there  was  no  connection  between 
them  and  “the  truth  which  is  according  to  godliness” — the 
genuine  faith  of  God’s  elect,  once  for  all  delivered  to  the 
saints,  and  for  which  they  must  earnestly  contend. 

Plainly  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament  leaves  us  with 
need  of  a  further  and  completing  revelation.  We  find  the 
unfinished  fabric  taken  up  for  a  short  time  by  John  the 
Baptist,  and  then  taken  in  hand  by  the  Lord  Himself  and 
largely  added  to,  but  as  He  Himself  says  not  completed. 


The  Bible;  What  it  is 


65 


yet  the  definite  promise  given  as  to  when  and  by  whom 
this  great  work  would  be  accomplished. 

It  is  quite  generally  accepted  that  John  wrote  toward 
the  end  of  the  first  century.  His  frequent  use  of  the 
expression  “the  truth”  is  worthy  of  note.  It  makes  plain 
that  there  existed  in  well  recognized  form  that  which  could 
be  so  positively  defined.  He  could  appeal  to  it  as  the 
only  basis  for  the  right  exercise  of  love,  obedience  and 
Christian  walk.  What  is  a  lie,  and  he  who  is  a  liar,  are 
determined  for  the  apostle  by  what  is  termed  “the  truth.” 
He  is  very  bold  and  says,  ‘We  are  of  God;  he  that  knows 
God  hears  us.  From  this  we  know  the  Spirit  of  truth  and 
the  spirit  of  error.”  This  in  the  face  of  what  was  then 
claiming  to  be  new  revelation  and  fuller  knowledge,  of 
which  Modernism  is  the  20th  century  offspring.  Now  as 
to  what  comprises  this  truth;  we  are  told  it  is  the  word 
which  they  had  heard  from  the  beginning  (ch.  2:  7).  We 
are  not  left  in  doubt  as  to  that  with  which  this  beginning 
is  associated.  It  is  the  manifestation  of  the  Eternal  Life, 
the  Word  become  flesh,  dwelling  among  men,  revealing 
His  glory,  full  of  grace  and  truth,  speaking  words  which 
are  spirit  and  life,  giving  the  word  and  knowledge  of  the 
Father,  and  giving  specific  promises  of  complete  and  final 
revelation  through  the  word  of  His  chosen  servants — 
“their  word,”  as  He  says  in  praying  to  the  Father — in 
short,  “the  doctrine  of  Christ.”  If  a  man  does  not  abide 
in  this  he  “has  not  God”  (2  John  9).  A  study  of  John’s 
writings  will  leave  no  uncertainty  as  to  what  he  means  by 
“the  truth.”  The  doctrine  of  Christ  comprises  the  entire 
Old  Testament,  used  and  authenticated  by  Him;  His  own 
teaching;  the  teaching  of  His  servants  as  given  in  the 
New  Testament — to  all  of  this  the  appellation,  “the  Word 


66 


Modernism 


of  God,”  is  given.  Jude  thus  speaks  of  “the  faith  once 
delivered,”  and  bids  us  “remember  the  words  spoken  be¬ 
fore  by  the  apostles  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  Peter 
accredits  Paul’s  epistles  as  Scripture  when  in  speaking  of 
them  he  says,  “As  also  the  other  Scriptures.” 

In  agreement  with  these  thoughts  we  find  Paul  in  his 
late  epistles  frequently  speaking  of  “the  truth.”  And  it 
is  striking  that  with  him,  as  also  with  John,  Peter  and 
Jude,  this  emphasis  of  “the  truth”  is  placed  in  connection 
with  statements  concerning  those  who  refuse  it,  turn  from 
it,  act  upon  fleshly,  worldly  principles,  wrest  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  to  their  own  destruction,  those  who  err,  have  corrupt 
minds,  itching  ears  which  turn  away  from  the  truth, 
seducers,  deceivers,  and  those  who  prefer  gain  to  godli¬ 
ness.  It  is  simply  “the  truth”  which  stands  either  ne¬ 
glected,  refused,  or  opposed  by  those  who  are  thus  put 
in  contrast  to  it.  Moreover  it  must  be  that  by  which 
these  New  Testament  writers  judge  those  thus  character¬ 
ized.  Paul  declares  he  speaks  “the  truth  in  Christ,”  and 
links  the  faith  of  God’s  elect  with  “the  truth  which  is 
according  to  godliness  ”  This  connects  with  John’s 
thoughts,  for  Paul  tells  us  of  the  great  mystery  of  godli¬ 
ness  which  must  certainly  be  that  with  which  “the  truth.” 
accords.  That  mystery  is  the  revelation  of  Christ  in  the 
truth  of  His  person,  and  the  divine  purposes. 

This  makes  evident  that  the  apostles  had  before  them 
a  definite,  complete,  and  final  standard  of  knowledge  and 
judgment.  They  are  the  only  divinely-inspired  successors 
of  our  Lord.  That  which  they  have  given  becomes  the 
only  standard  by  which  to  judge  of  all  else.  This  they 
both  assert  and  claim  for  themselves  and  their  words. 

A  like  expression — “the  faith” — may  be  traced,  and 
found  to  lead  to  the  same  conclusion. 


The  Bible;  What  it  is 


67 


Paul  pronounced  curse  upon  any  so-called  gospel  which 
in  any  way  nullified  the  truth  he  preached.  His  was  the 
gospel  of  God  concerning  His  Son. 

In  the  final  analysis  all  is  made  to  rest  upon  Christ,  His 
person,  work,  and  subsequent  revelation. 

The  Modernist  loudly  proclaims,  “Back  to  Jesus  for 
our  religion,  back  to  Him  for  our  best  conception  of  what 
God  is  like.  See  His  face  and  live  His  life  as  He  mani¬ 
festly  intended  that  His  disciples  should  do.  That  is  the 
best  substance  of  the  matter.  And  this  is  the  work  in 
which  Modernists  in  religion  are  earnestly  and  intensely 
interested.” 

We  obey  their  behest,  and  as  we  go  back  to  Jesus  and 
v.ork  forward  with  Plim  until  we  have  ranged  through  all 
the  Scriptures,  we  with  resolute  mind  and  thankful  spirit 
utterly  discard  Modernism  and  its  foundation  of  pseudo¬ 
scientific  criticism. 

The  conclusion  is  certain  that  the  Bible  is  the  standard 
of  knowledge  and  judgment.  As  such  we  accept  it  in  its 
entirety,  and  with  it  in  our  hands  shall  proceed  to  work 
through  the  problems  before  us. 

I  may  add  in  relation  to  this  Book  that  there  is  not 
any  of  the  departments  of  knowledge  and  research  in 
which  man  finds  himself  engaged  to  which  it  would  not 
give  clearer  light  and  a  steadying  hand,  even  the  touch 
of  the  Divine,  which  to-day  is  so  largely  absent  (in  many 
cases  entirely  so)  from  these  fields  of  study  because  of  the 
deliberate  wilful  exclusion  of  this  Book  of  God.  In  it  we 
have  finality  and  stability  given  to  us  in  omniscient  speech. 


CHAPTER  III. 


MatCs  history  and  condition;  does  it  witness  to 
evolution  or  devolution? 

The  consideration  of  this  subject  I  wish  to  present 
in  a  fourfold  way:  first,  the  evolutionary  pro¬ 
gram  in  relation  to  man;  secondly,  the  geolo¬ 
gical  program  of  earth-history  in  relation  to  man,  and  his 
place  in  its  development;  thirdly,  the  annals  of  history 
and  what  they  teach  in  relation  to  man ;  and  fourthly,  the 
conclusions  to  which  the  evidence  leads. 

Perhaps  a  brief  definition  of  the  contrasted  terms — 
evolution,  devolution — may  be  given  first.  Evolution  is  the 
act  or  process  of  unfolding,  or  the  state  of  being  unfolded ; 
hence  the  process  of  evolving  or  becoming  developed. 
This  in  general  is  always  considered,  in  the  way  in  which 
we  are  speaking  of  it,  as  an  evolving  upward  in  constant 
progression,  a  continuous  advance  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest  forms  in  the  midst  of  which  man  finds  his  place, 
so  tliat  his  physical,  mental  and  spiritual  characteristics 
are  the  results  of  this  vast  program  which  is  undisturbed 
by  any  act  of  special  creation.  Devolution  is  chiefly  used 
as  describing  the  act  of  transferring,  handing  over,  or 
transmitting  from  one  person  to  another;  a  passing  or 
falling  to  a  successor,  as  of  office,  authority  or  estate. 
From  its  Latin  root  we  get  as  a  primary  thought,  the  act 
of  rolling  down,  so  that  it  has  been  used  in  the  sense  of 
degeneration,  and  as  the  opposite  of  evolution.  Our  pres- 


Man's  History  and  Condition  69 

ent  study  is  to  help  us  determine  which  of  these  terms 
may  best  be  applied  to  man’s  history  and  condition. 

I. 

Let  me  now  present  in  condensed  form,  though  suffi¬ 
cient  for  our  present  purpose,  the  evolutionary  program 
as  it  specially  relates  to  man. 

Modem  evolutionists  chiefly  ascribe  all  changes  to  ex¬ 
ternal  causes — a  mechanical  operation  of  outward  condi¬ 
tions,  so  that  there  evolves  that  form  of  organism  which 
best  suits  the  environment.  Nature  does  not  deliberately 
form  results  for  certain  ends,  but  the  process  is  made 
adaptable  to  a  certain  end  by  a  sort  of  natural  selection, 
the  survival  of  the  fittest,  and  with  this  are  interwoven  the 
principles  of  variation  and  heredity. 

Upon  this  basis  the  doctrine  formulated  is  that  of  a 
continuous  development  in  the  unity  of  nature  from  inor¬ 
ganic  to  organic,  from  the  stone  to  the  plant,  from  the 
plant  to  the  animal,  and  from  the  animal  to  man.  This 
is  in  fact  the  progress  of  Genesis  1,  only  not  the  result  of 
one  order  of  life  evolving  out  of  the  other,  but  each  dis¬ 
tinct  and  complete  in  itself  produced  by  the  word  and 
power  of  God.  But  further,  the  evolutionist  not  only  con¬ 
siders  nature  to  have  evolved  according  to  fixed  laws  and 
natural  conditions,  but  history  also,  it  being  simply  a  con¬ 
tinuation  of  the  process,  both  having  as  their  object  the 
education  of  man  in  perfect  humanity.  The  failure  to 
attain  to  this  causes  the  religio-evolutionist  to  add  on  the 
idea  of  a  future  life  for  the  continuation  of  the  process. 
The  materialist  is,  of  course,  not  troubled  with  any  such 
tail  to  his  system. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  development  of  human  life  is 


70 


Modernism 


quite  unique  in  the  organic  world.  The  evolutionary  pro¬ 
gram  divides  it  into  two  main  departments — physical  and 
cultural.  The  first  presents  the  origin  and  descent  of  man. 
The  second  deals  with  evidence  consisting  of  the  remains 
of  man’s  work,  these  constituting  the  preserved  impres¬ 
sions  of  his  gradual  development  at  different  stages  of  his 
history.  The  first  deals  with  man’s  evolvement  from  the 
anthropoid  apes,  the  second  deals  with  the  remains  of 
man’s  handicraft  chronologically  arranged  according  to 
geological  data,  as  far  as  the  earliest  stages  of  his  exis¬ 
tence  are  concerned,  and  these  remains  are  taken  to  indi¬ 
cate  a  parallel  between  the  development  of  the  human 
skull  and  the  growing  improvement  of  his  handiwork. 

To  provide  for  all  the  requirements  of  the  case  from 
the  physical  side,  the  starting-point  is  placed  approxi¬ 
mately  in  the  Miocene  epoch  of  the  Tertiary  period  of 
geology,  when  man’s  progenitor,  whose  physical  and  men¬ 
tal  attainments  were  on  a  par  with  the  anthropoid  apes 
now  existing,  through  some  exigency  due  to  changing  ex¬ 
ternal  conditions  began  to  assume  by  degrees  an  erect  atti¬ 
tude.  The  movement  “was  finally  completed  by  the  adjust¬ 
ment  of  certain  muscles  and  bones  so  as  to  balance  the 
upper  part  of  the  body  on  the  spinal  column,  and  facilitate 
bipedal  locomotion,  which  henceforth  became  man’s  nor¬ 
mal  mode  of  progression.”  This  was  soon  followed  by 
the  differentiation  of  the  hands  and  feet,  with  a  corres¬ 
ponding  change  in  form  and  parts,  though  the  essential 
structure  remains  the  same.  Now  the  hand  development 
of  the  upper  limbs  of  this  evolving  animal  is  considered 
“one  of  the  main  factors  in  the  higher  brain  development 
of  man.”  From  this  it  is  claimed  there  would  develop 
an  entirely  new  cycle  of  experiences  in,  and  relations  to, 


Man's  History  and  Condition  71 

the  world  around,  which  would  in  their  process  of  unfold¬ 
ing  bring  also  increasing  mental  development,  by  reason 
of  their  natural  and  constant  demand  for  it  as  circum¬ 
stances  and  conditions  changed  under  the  new  manipula¬ 
tive  powers.  “In  this  way  the  function  of  the  hand  and 
the  function  of  the  brain  become  intimately  correlated, 
the  conjoint  result  of  their  long  continued  action  being 
a  larger  brain,  greater  intelligence,  and  more  highly 
specialized  manipulative  organs  than  were  ever  before  seen 
among  the  products  of  the  organic  world.”  The  cranial 
capacity  of  the  average  European  is  about  2^  times 
greater  than  the  gorilla’s.  It  is  considered  “that  the  largest 
portion  of  this  increase  in  the  substance  of  the  human 
brain  is  to  be  correlated  with  the  higher  mental  powers 
of  man,  as  cause  and  effect  ...  Nor  can  there  be  any 
doubt  that  its  chief  stimulus,  at  least  in  the  earliest  stages 
of  human  development,  was  the  function  of  the  hand. 
That  subsequently  there  were  other  powerful  factors  work¬ 
ing  in  the  same  direcion  is  not  denied.”  These  factors 
are  the  development  of  articulate  speech,  later  the  art  of 
writing,  and  along  with  both  the  development  of  imple¬ 
ments  and  mechanical  appliances.  The  same  principle 
governs  throughout,  for  “spoken  language  is  virtually  an 
extension,  or  rather  a  concentration,  of  the  power  which 
many  of  the  more  intelligent  animals  possess  of  giving 
expression  to  emotions  and  simple  sensations  by  various 
ejaculatory  sounds,  grimaces,  and  gestures.  The  acquisi¬ 
tion  of  full  human  speech  was,  unquestionably,  the  result 
of  slow  growth.”  The  time  when  this  stage  of  the  evolu¬ 
tion  was  reached  remains  very  uncertain.  Thus  has  the 
way  been  forged  “into  what  is  virtually  a  new  world — the 
world  of  ethics  and  responsibility.”  Thus  man  evolved 


72 


Modernism 


from  the  pithecoid  group  of  animals  by  first  adopting  an 
erect  posture,  then  through  finding  new  uses  for  his  upp)er 
limbs,  until  through  the  mechanical  process  of  new  meth¬ 
ods  of  manipulation  changes  came  to  their  form,  and  with 
this  also  to  his  lower  limbs  as  now  bearing  the  entire 
bodily  structure.  Gradually  he  fell  to  making  things  for 
his  hands  to  use,  clubs,  or  stone  articles,  and  such  like, 
first  to  use  against  his  enemies  in  the  struggle  for  exis¬ 
tence,  and  then  more  advanced  implements  for  other  pur¬ 
poses.  “These  implement-using  animals”  soon  learned  to 
accommodate  themselves  to  the  vicissitudes  of  their  en¬ 
vironment.  They  learnt  the  use  of  fire,  acquired  skill  in 
garment-making,  began  to  construct  houses,  became  more 
and  more  conversant  with  the  laws  of  nature  and  their 
power  over  them,  and  so  too  the  cultivation  of  selected 
plants  and  animals  and  the  destruction  of  others.  Social 
and  sedentary  habits  were  formed,  communities  established, 
then  religion  and  legislation,  until  we  enter  the  complexity 
of  the  20th  century. 

Now  the  foundation  of  this  whole  structure  is  found  in 
the  application  of  the  comparative  method,  by  which  man 
— physically,  mentally  and  socially — is  linked  with  the 
animals  nearest  to  him.  “No  fair-minded  person  who  is 
conversant  with  the  close  anatomical  and  physiological 
resemblances  between  the  structural  details  of  man  and 
those  of  the  anthropoid  apes — every  bone,  muscle,  nerve, 
and  blood-vessel  being  virtually  the  same — and  the  strik¬ 
ing  analogy  between  the  complex  mechanism  of  their 
organs  of  sense,  can  seriously  deny  their  community  of 
descent,  at  least  from  the  purely  physical  aspect  of  the 
subject.”  The  same  reasoning  is  applied  to  man’s  mental 
characteristics,  so  that  the  similarity  between  his  emotions 


Man’s  History  and  Condition 


73 


and  faculties  and  those  of  the  higher  mammalia  is  made  a 
proof  of  man’s  mental  evolution,  as  well  as  physical,  from 
the  animal.  His  admittedly  greater  superiority  in  mental 
manifestations  is  simply  the  outcome  of  adaptation  to 
external  conditions.  It  is  due  to  “the  formation  of  brain 
substance  in  response  to  the  progressive  stimuli  of  the 
manipulative  organs — a  process  which  has  no  limits  and 
indeed  is  still  in  operation.” 

Now  why  should  any  fair-minded  person  conclude  that 
because  of  these  striking  analogies  there  must  be  “com¬ 
munity  of  descent”  when  in  fact  “community  of  structure” 
fully  meets  the  case?  By  what  stretch  of  the  imagination 
can  descent  be  demsinded  as  the  only  fair  conclusion,  even 
admitting  all  presented  as  evidence?  If  there  had  not 
been  as  the  promoting  cause  the  secret  desire  to  remove 
God  from  the  realm  of  creation  this  program  would  never 
have  had  its  birth.  Thus  evolutionists  deny  specific  crea¬ 
tive  acts,  and  if  they  do  not  destroy,  at  least  greatly 
weaken,  any  sense  of  human  responsibility  toward  God, 
nullify  the  meaning  and  force  of  sin,  evacuate  the  idea  of 
judgment  of  all  its  meaning  and  moral  bearing  upon  man. 
It  naturally  follows  that  a  being  which  has  evolved  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  program  here  outlined  cannot  be  held  ac¬ 
countable  by  a  Being  outside  of  the  world  for  any  state 
of  imperfection  in  which  he  is  found  and  out  of  which  he 
is  striving  ever  upward,  and  has  so  far  elevated  himself 
as  we  find  him  to-day.  Therefore  ideas  of  salvation, 
atonement,  or  future  judgment  are  ruled  out  by  the 
nature  of  the  case,  for  there  cannot  be  any  basis  for  a 
moral  relationship  of  any  kind  toward  God,  since  He  had 
not  the  slightest  link  with  the  evolvement,  it  being  en¬ 
tirely  due  to  natural  mechanical  causes.  We  are  not  to 


74 


Modernism 


think  of  God  presuming  to  come  across  the  path  of  this 
remarkable  animal,  even  to  make  its  passing  acquaintance. 
It  in  fact  must  trace  back  its  lineage  to  the  primordial 
cell,  and  back  of  that  to  some  great  Unknown,  so  that 
any  idea  of  God  is  simply  the  product  of  man’s  evolving 
mentality,  and  must  change  and  advance  with  him.  I  say, 
if  there  had  not  been  such  motives  at  work,  although 
perhaps  not  recognized  by  some,  this  whole  program  would 
never  have  had  its  birth. 

That  there  is  between  man  and  the  animal  kingdom 
community  of  structure  and  of  emotional  faculty  is  unde¬ 
niable;  and  it  is  recognized  in  Scripture,  if  in  nothing  else, 
in  the  fact  that  both  animals  and  man  are  called  living 
souls.  With  the  soul  Scripture  consistently  associates  all 
those  emotional  activities  and  characteristics  which  the 
evolutionist  delights  to  show  belong  to  the  higher  mam¬ 
malia  at  least,  as  well  as  to  man.  But  to  this  Scripture 
adds  (and  consistently  teaches  concerning)  that  element 
of  his  being  to  which  all  his  undeniable  superiority  is 
attributed — the  spirit;  and  to  this  great  truth  is  added 
that  of  his  special  distinctive  creation  by  God.  With  this 
immediately  comes  in  the  whole  cycle  of  truth  in  its 
various  forms,  to  which,  as  I  have  said,  evolution  is  the 
flat  denial. 

This  theory  of  descent  assumes  as  the  explanation  of 
certain  analogies,  “genealogical  relations  of  affinity  and 
changes  of  organisms  in  great  numbers,”  while  yet  “not 
one  case  of  a  definite  and  permanent  change  of  an  organic 
species  into  another  has  been  accurately  observed.”  Gaps 
and  deficiencies  occur  in  every  form  of  argument  ad¬ 
vanced,  whether  from  anatomy,  or  the  embryo,  or  paleon¬ 
tology. 


Man’s  History  and  Condition 


75 


II. 

The  program  of  man’s  descent,  and  that  of  the  geologist 
for  the  age  of  the  earth,  find  a  sympathetic  link  in  the 
principle  of  uniformity  upon  which  the  whole  time  system 
of  geology  is  now  built.  This  principle  is  that  what  may 
now  be  observed  as  the  rate  of  action  of,  and  the  methods 
used  by,  geologic  agents  in  the  accomplishment  of  their 
work  of  earth-shaping,  apart  from  any  valid  reason  to  the 
contrary,  must  be  considered  as  that  which  has  always 
prevailed.  In  other  words,  that  the  past  must  be  ex¬ 
plained  by  the  present  unless  good  cause  can  be  shown  to 
the  contrary.  Present  computation  is  therefore  the  basis 
of  all  computation  generally  speaking.  “Given  time 
enough,  even  the  slow  processes  operating  at  present, 
which  produce  no  perceptible  change  in  one’s  surroundings 
in  a  lifetime,  will  accomplish  the  stupendous  results  so 
clearly  proved  by  geological  study.”  The  result  is  the 
supposition  of  100,000,000  years  for  the  age  of  the  oldest 
rocks.  Manifestly  this  is  pure  assumption,  for  “there  is 
as  yet  no  reliable  geological  chronometer.”  There  is  noth¬ 
ing  conclusive  against  the  idea  that  action  may  have  been 
much  more  rapid  in  past  ages  than  now  observed.  Phy¬ 
sicists  from  their  studies  cut  the  earth’s  age  down  to  20 
million  years,  and  even  this  is  based  upon  a  similar  prin¬ 
ciple  of  comparison,  which  can  be  no  more  considered 
valid  for  their  use  than  for  the  geologist. 

Great  breaks  are  acknowledged  to  exist  in  the  records 
of  the  strata,  which  are  like  leaves  torn  out  of  the  geologic 
book.  These  were  once  considered  to  be  the  result  of 
great  catastrophes,  but  the  now  prevailing  uniformist  view 
is  that  they  are  merely  gaps  in  our  knowledge  which  will 


76 


Modernism 


be  gradually  filled  as  time  goes  on.  It  is  owned  that  our 
present  knowledge  is  very  imperfect;  that  a  great  part  of 
the  earth's  surface  has  not  been  examined  at  all,  and  in 
the  best  known  parts  only  a  small  part  of  what  it  is 
underground  can  be  seen;  that  it  is  impossible  to  recover 
a  complete  history  of  life  on  the  earth;  that  in  tabulat¬ 
ing  geological  periods  it  is  like  putting  together  frag¬ 
ments,  and  thus  giving  them  an  aspect  of  continuity. 
These  things  being  confessed,  many  professed  results  and 
theories  must  be  of  a  fictitious  character. 

We  may  gather  that  the  periods,  which  are  stated  as 
composing  the  earth-development,  bear  a  similarity  to  the 
Genesis  record.  The  first  great  period  when  the  oldest 
rocks  were  formed  and  laid  down  seems  to  have  been 
characterized  by  a  condition  much  like  that  described 
in  Genesis  1:2.  This  is  followed  by  the  second,  or 
Paleozoic,  period,  during  which  the  continents  emerged 
and  dense  vegetation  prevailed,  while  the  greatest  pos¬ 
sible  alterations  in  atmospheric  and  climatic  conditions 
must  have  marked  its  progress.  Something  of  the  2nd 
and  3rd  days  of  Genesis  find  illustration  here.  But 
the  fossil  history  records  also  abundant  animal  life,  es¬ 
pecially  in  the  great  seas  of  Paleozoic  time,  and  this 
marks  a  most  important  dissimilarity  to  Genesis,  where 
such  marine  life  does  not  appear  until  the  5  th  day.  Me¬ 
sozoic  time  follows  in  which  further  continental  devel¬ 
opment  takes  place,  and  if  vegetation  is  not  so  gigantic 
still  it  is  abundant,  and  animal  life  is  more  largely  de¬ 
veloped,  so  that  toward  its  close  we  get  what  is  called  the 
age  of  reptiles.  This  again  in  a  measure  corresponds  with 
the  Sth  day  of  Genesis,  with  however  another  feature  of 
dissimilarity  in  the  fossil  history,  namely,  that  land- 


Man’s  History  and  Condition  77 

animals  are  interspersed,  and  such  only  appear  on  the 
sixth  day  in  Genesis.  Then  comes  the  Cenozoic,  or 
Tertiary,  period,  of  which  recent  time  forms  a  part.  This 
time  is  marked  by  the  finishing  off  of  the  continental 
masses,  the  great  prevalence  of  land-animals,  some  of 
seemingly  monstrous  size,  and  the  existence  of  man,  at 
least  toward  its  close.  These  principal  periods  are  marked 
as  such  by  breaks  or  gaps,  so  that  we  are  told  to  consider 
that  the  limits  of  these  geological  periods  or  formations 
simply  mark  gaps  in  our  knowledge.  As  already  noticed, 
the  evolutionist  places  man’s  appearance  in  about  the 
middle  part  of  the  last  period.  This,  according  to  geolo¬ 
gical  calculations,  would  make  his  history  date  back 
several  ten  thousands  of  years.  It  is  considered  proved 
by  recent  discoveries  of  stone  tools  or  weapons  in  caves 
and  beds  of  streams,  along  with  remains  of  animals  long 
extinct;  and  by  reason  of  such  associations  no  doubt  is 
supposed  to  be  left  as  to  the  early  date  of  his  pres¬ 
ence  on  the  earth.  This  really  rests  upon  the  unstable 
foundation  of  that  principle  and  resultant  calculations  to 
which  I  have  already  referred — the  principle  of  uniform¬ 
ity.  There  is  nothing  really  reliable,  for  geologists  have 
had  to  make  frequent  changes  in  their  time  estimates 
because  of  the  real  lack  of  anything  like  conclusive 
evidence.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  theoretic  geolog}^ 
and  the  evolutionary  theory  as  to  man’s  origin  join  hands, 
and  stand  or  fall  together.  Neither  geology  nor  evolu¬ 
tionary  anthropology  can  bridge  the  great  gaps  that  exist; 
first,  between  dead  and  living  matter;  secondly,  between 
vegetable  and  animal  life;  thirdly,  between  any  species 
of  animal  or  plant  and  any  other  species;  and  fourthly, 
between  animal-nature  and  the  nature  of  man. 


78 


Modernism 


I  have  called  attention  to  the  divergencies  between  the 
general  order  of  geological  development  and  the  Genesis 
record.  It  really  forbids  any  possibility  of  making  the 
days  and  the  periods  the  same.  First,  the  Genesis  account 
is  both  astronomical  and  geological.  The  work  of  the  first 
and  fourth  days  could  not  possibly  find  any  correspon¬ 
dence  in  geology.  The  other  days  are  as  follows: 

2nd.  It  has  only  to  do  with  waters  and  atmospheric 
conditions. 

3rd.  It  has  only  to  do  with  the  emergence  of  the  dry 
land,  formation  of  the  seas,  and  plant  life. 

5th.  It  has  only  to  do  with  the  introduction  of  marine 
life. 

6th.  It  has  only  to  do  with  the  introduction  of  land 
life  and  with  man. 

Now  the  whole  history  of  geology,  its  every  period,  is 
marked  by  great  water  and  atmospheric  changes;  by 
constant  emergence  or  subsidence  of  the  continents;  by 
the  presence  of  plant  and  animal  life,  though  the  scale 
be  an  ascending  one  as  judged  by  the  fossils.  No  period 
is  marked  by  that  which  is  specific  and  exclusive,  as  the 
days  of  Genesis  plainly  are.  This  fossil  record  indicates 
the  co-existence  of  plant  and  animal  life  in  most  varied 
forms,  though  these  periods  may  be  said  to  have  their 
predominant  types  answering  in  a  certain  degree  to  the 
distinctive  but  exclusive  features  of  the  Genesis  days. 
But  these  days  do  not  present  such  co-existence.  The 
earth  is  presented  in  its  final  form  on  the  third  day,  then 
plant  life,  then  marine  life,  then  land  life  in  succession, 
not  all  co-existing  in  a  larger  or  smaller  measure  through 
all  the  days  from  the  commencement,  as  in  the  geologic 
record  of  its  periods. 


Man’s  History  and  Condition  79 

In  what  light  then  are  we  to  consider  the  six  days’ 
work?  Simply  and  solely  as  being  the  description  of  a 
special  work  of  the  Creator,  by  which  He  established, 
fitted,  and  furnished  the  earth  as  to  its  completed  condition, 
its  plant  and  animal  life,  and  its  heavenly  relations,  for 
man,  the  appointed  head  of  this  perfect  system.  Now  the 
explanation  of  the  phenomena  presented  by  geology  lies 
entirely  outside  of  this.  Granted  that  recent  time  is  re 
presented  in  its  record,  there  is  no  need  of  denying  that 
that  record  may  reach  far  beyond  the  first  day  of  Gene¬ 
sis  into  that  unmeasured  time  which  may  be  introduced 
between  verses  one  and  two  of  that  chapter,  and  in  which 
the  condition  of  verse  2  finds  its, place,  perhaps  just  prior 
to  the  new  world-order  brought  in  by  the  six  days’ 
work  and  headed  by  man.  Whatever  may  be  the  wonders 
of  geologic  and  anthropologic  study  let  it  be  remembered 
that  at  the  best  the  knowledge  obtained  is  confessed  to 
be  very  partial  and  incomplete,  that  there  is  no  secure 
basis  for  time  calculations,  and  that  therefore  we  have  in 
them  no  stable  standard  by  which  to  judge,  much  more 
condemn,  the  Scriptural  record  of  creation  or  man’s  origin. 
In  it  there  is  certainty,  simplicity,  and  majesty  absolutely 
unequaled  in  any  other  production.  It  palpitates  with 
the  presence  of  God,  and  bridges  the  gaps,  so  confounding 
to  human  wisdom,  by  the  word  of  His  power. 

III. 

What  does  the  historian  tell  us?  He  links  his  study 
with  what  we  have  been  considering,  and  commences  by 
giving  an  outline  of  the  Prehistoric  Age.  By  this  is 
meant  ‘^the  immensely  long  periods  of  human  life  which 
lie  back  of  the  time  when  man  began  to  keep  written  or 


80 


Modernism 


graven  records  of  events  .  .  .  The  comparatively  few  cen¬ 
turies  of  human  experience  made  known  to  us  through 
such  records  comprise  the  Historic  Age.”  The  length  of 
this  is  variously  given,  indicating  that  after  all  the  labor¬ 
ious  research  expended  on  the  questions  of  chronology  no 
secure  basis  has  been  reached.  Eg3q)tian  and  Babylonian 
records  still  need  much  study,  having  problems  and  gaps 
still  unsolved,  so  that  present  day  knowledge  in  this  as 
in  science  remains  incomplete.  On  the  other  hand  the 
Bible  presents  its  own  complete  chronological  system;  the 
data  which  explains  it  is  found  within  itself,  and  confirma¬ 
tion  of  it  increases  as  archeological  discoveries  continue. 

Fastening  upon  the  supposed  evidence  of  man’s  great 
antiquity  as  postulated  by  geology  resting  upon  its  very 
unstable  foundation,  the  historian  in  a  quite  misleading 
way  spealis  of  the  old  and  new  stone  ages — Paleolithic  and 
Neolithic  ages — and  declares  that  a  study  of  the  remains 
of  chipped  stone  implements,  then  of  those  which  were  evi¬ 
dently  ground  smooth  and  sharp  and  had  handles  fitted 
to  them,  then  of  some  rude  articles  of  pottery  showing  the 
beginning  of  this  art,  all  “embody  the  results  of  thou¬ 
sands  (perhaps  tens  of  thousands)  of  years  of  human 
experience  and  invention,  and  mark  the  first  steps  in 
human  progress.”  Along  with  this  primitive  condition  it 
is  strangely  asserted  that  some  of  these  cave-dwelling 
hunters  possessed  an  ability  in  art*  which  “in  some  re¬ 
spects  has  never  been  surpassed  or  even  equaled,”  so  that 
“the  history  of  art  must  hereafter  begin  with  the  work  of 


*  This  is  deduced  from  animal  drawings  found  upon  the 
walls  of  caverns  where  these  men  are  supposed  to  have 
lived,  and  into  which  not  a  ray  of  daylight  enters. 


Man’s  History  and  Condition  81 

these  artist  hunters  of  the  Paleolithic  time,”  an  age  which, 
it  is  said,  we  are  not  to  reckon  by  centuries,  or  even 
millenniums,  but  only  by  geologic  epochs,  which,  as  I 
have  stated,  have  no  reliable  time  element  connected  with 
them. 

Now  these  things  are  artificially  arranged  in  this  way 
to  give  color  to  the  evolutionary  program  in  relation  to 
man  when  there  is  absolutely  no  reliable  evidence  to  sup¬ 
port  the  scheme. 

Why  accept  the  uncertain,  in  fact  the  unproved,  the¬ 
ories  of  anthropologists  and  geologists,  since  it  is  admitted 
that  “the  Australians  and  New  Zealanders  when  first  dis¬ 
covered*  were  in  the  Paleolithic  stage  of  culture;  the 
Tasmanians  had  not  yet  reached  it.”  Why  then  must  I 
go  back  to  the  Ice  Age  of  geology  to  find  the  beginning 
of  the  old  Stone  Age  men?  Why  do  I  need  to  go  further 
back  than  4000  B.  C.  if  only  a  couple  of  hundred  years 
ago  man  in  this  rude  beginning  was  still  existing  in  the 
world?  Why  this  vagary  of  tens  of  thousands  of  years? 
Because  these  implements  are  found  in  certain  geologic 
associations,  which  must  be  of  such  and  such  an  age  (?), 
and  they  could  only  be  of  human  production.  All  would 
seem  very  conclusive,  but  there  is  a  fatal  if  in  the  age 
calculation.  The  implements  of  Paleolithic  man,  we  are 
told,  indicate  that  he  made  clothing  of  skins,  doubtless 
the  skins  of  animals  killed  in  the  chase,  and  that  he  had 
not  learned  the  art  of  weaving.  Granted.  Does  not 
Genesis  3:  21  offer  an  explanation?  God  made  coats  of 
skin  and  clothed  them.  Would  man  learn  nothing  from 


*  Not  until  the  early  eighteen  hundreds  was  exploration 
and  study  given  to  these  parts  of  the  world. 


82 


Modernism 


this,  so  that  when  driven  out  of  the  Garden  he  would  du¬ 
plicate  for  himself,  and  teach  his  children  also  to  maJke 
for  themselves,  what  God  had  first  done  for  the  parents? 
And  yet  in  this  we  may  find  the  deepest  typical  and  spirit¬ 
ual  meaning  linking  with  some  of  the  most  blessed  teach¬ 
ing  of  Scripture  as  to  atonement  and  salvation. 

Let  us  move  forward  now  to  the  new  Stone  Age — the 
Neolithic — in  which  we  get  advance  from  the  rude  condi¬ 
tions  of  the  old  Stone  Age  indicated  in  stone  tools 
and  weapons  ground  and  polished  with  handles  attached, 
the  art  of  pottery  developing,  spinning  and  w^eaving,  cul¬ 
tivation  of  the  soil,  domestication  of  animals,  house  build¬ 
ing,  and  even  latterly  tombs  and  monuments.  But  it  is 
admitted  that  “the  North  American  Indians  were  in  this 
stage  of  culture  at  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  the  New 
World.  The  Egyptians  and  Babylonians  were  just  emerg¬ 
ing  from  it  when  they  first  appeared  in  history.”  And 
how  about  the  Incas  of  Peru  and  the  Aztecs  of  Mexico? 
I  might  ask  over  again  the  questions  already  proposed. 
Does  not  Genesis  4  depict  every  feature  of  so-called 
Neolithic  culture?  What  still  existed  in  the  15th  century 
need  not  be  supposed  to  have  begun  before  the  fourth 
millenium  B.  C.  The  Swiss  lake-dwellings  are  pointed  to 
as  the  work  of  Neolithic  man.  But  such  pile-villages  are 
still  found  as  the  habitations  of  certain  tribes  of  people. 

But  we  pass  after  several  thousand  years  of  Neolithic 
culture  into  the  Age  of  Metals — when  copper,  bronze,  and 
iron  came  into  use.  With  this  development,  it  is  said, 
man  really  began  “to  subdue  the  earth  and  to  get  do¬ 
minion  over  nature.  All  the  higher  cultures  of  the  ancient 
world  with  which  history  begins  were  based  on  the  knowl¬ 
edge  and  use  of  metals.”  “Speaking  broadly,  we  may  say 


Man’s  History  and  Condition  83 

that  the  Age  of  Metals  began  for  the  most  advanced  peo¬ 
ples  of  the  ancient  world  between  3000  and  4000  B.  C.” 

So-called  Neolithic  man,  besides  being  a  hunter,  is 
credited  with  being  a  weaver,  a  carpenter,  a  founder  of 
communities,  a  keeper  of  cattle  and  a  tiller  of  the  soil. 
He  advanced  by  the  development  of  the  use  of  metals. 
Turn  to  Genesis  4.  Everyone  of  these  features  mark  the 
history  of  Cain’s  family,  with  the  added  features  of  music 
and  song.  Cultivation  of  the  soil,  city-building  and  tent¬ 
making,  for  both  of  which  carpentry,  spinning,  and  weav¬ 
ing  were  essential;  working  in  brass  and  iron,  hence  the 
use  of  fire;  making  of  musical  instruments,  suggesting 
not  only  the  metal-worker  but  also  the  cabinet-maker; 
and  song — all  are  here.  These  things  cannot  be  thought 
of  apart  from  the  existence  of  language  and  writing.  The 
evolutionary  historian  places  the  origination  of  both  dur 
ing  the  course  of  the  many  thousands  of  years  allotted  to 
the  Stone  and  Metal  Ages.  Genesis  is  not  behind  in  in¬ 
cluding  language  as  one  of  the  accomplishments  of  the 
first  men. 

It  is  admitted  that  we  find  out  about  prehistoric  man 
by  first  “studying  the  life  of  present-day  backward  races; 
for  what  they  now  are,  the  great  races  of  history,  we  have 
reason  to  believe,  were  in  their  prehistoric  age.”  But 
why  then  any  such  age,  or  man?  Simply  and  solely  to  meet 
the  unfounded  claims  of  uniformitarian  geologists  and  evo¬ 
lutionary  anthropologists.  All  the  exhumed  evidence  used 
to  prove  such  immense  prehistoric  periods  and  man’s 
existence  is  to  be  found  actually  duplicated  in  present- 
day  conditions.  Why  is  not  this  evidence  which  is  found 
in  ancient  gravel-beds,  in  caves,  and  other  places,  nothing 
more  than  the  remains  of  the  Cainite  world  in  which 


84 


Modernism 


wp  find  every  feature  of  Paleolithic,  Neolithic  and  Metal- 
ithic  times,  carried  and  deposited  by  the  Noachian  de¬ 
luge,  and  since  then  often  covered  and  still  further  scat¬ 
tered  by  the  various  agents  of  geological  work?  Re¬ 
member  we  have  no  time-gauge  for  past  geologic  history. 

Two  interesting  points  are  credited  to  prehistoric  man; 
the  domestication  of  animals  in  which  the  historic  period 
has  furnished  no  material  increase  except  to  improve  the 
breed;  the  domestication  of  plants,  beyond  the  extent  of 
which  the  historic  period  has  not  made  progress,  for  it  is 
asserted  that  “so  thorough  was  prehistoric  man’s  search 
for  whatever  in  the  plant  world  could  be  cultivated  for 
food,  that  historic  man  has  not  been  able  during  the  last 
2000  years  from  the  tens  of  thousands  of  wild  plants  to 
discover  any  species  comparable  in  value  to  any  one  of 
the  staple  food-plants  selected  and  domesticated  by  pri¬ 
meval  man.”  These  two  things  would  seem  to  mark  the 
Cainite  world  also.  It  is  not  until  after  the  Flood  that  we 
hear  of  every  living  moving  thing  being  ordered  as  food 
for  man.  Previously  then  the  herb  of  the  field  must  have 
been  at  least  the  staple  food  of  men,  and  this  accounts  for 
the  great  development  of  which  the  historian  speaks. 
This  is  also  intimated  in  God’s  word  to  Adam:  “Thou 
shalt  eat  the  herb  of  the  field.  In  the  sweat  of  thy  face 
shalt  thou  eat  bread”  (Gen.  3:  19),  and  again  in  the 
directions  as  to  food  given  to  Noah  before  entering  the 
ark.  As  to  the  first  feature,  this  too  is  marked  as  charac¬ 
teristic  of  the  Cainite  world.  Jabal  is  called  the  father 
of  those  dwelling  in  tents  and  having  cattle,  here  “desig¬ 
nated  by  a  word  denoting  property,  as  being  chattels 
personal,  and  consisting  chiefly  of  sheep  and  oxen.”  The 
antediluvian  world  answers  perfectly  to  all  that  is  claimed 


Man^s  History  and  Condition  85 

for  prehistoric  man.  Why  not  compress  his  history  within 
Biblical  limits,  instead  of  assuming  untold  ages  based 
upon  the  flimsiest  evidence,  if  evidence  in  any  real  sense 
it  can  be  called?  The  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  It  lies 
in  the  refusal  to  accept  man’s  origin  and  fall  as  given  in 
Genesis  1-3. 

Look  upon  the  world  to-day.  Does  it  not  contain  every 
stage  of  development  indicated  in  the  evolutionary  pro¬ 
gram  from  the  anthropoid  apes  to  the  most  civilized  of 
men?  This  co-existence  is  not  marked  by  any  merging 
of  one  into  the  other;  each  runs  in  its  own  groove  with 
an  element  of  degeneration  manifest  in  all.  This  one  char¬ 
acteristic  alone  binds  all  in  reference  to  man  to  a  common 
historic  origin,  from  which  all  the  diverging  and  never 
meeting  lines  proceed,  and  which  alone  furnishes  an  answer 
to  the  moral  features  of  the  history. 

“The  plain  fact  is  that  human  history  is  a  strange  blend 
of  progress  and  regress;  it  is  the  story  of  the  rhythmic 
rise  and  fall  of  civilizations  and  empires,  of  gains  made 
only  to  be  lost,  and  lost  only  to  be  fought  for  once  again. 
Even  when  advance  has  come,  it  has  come  by  mingled 
progress  and  cataclysm  .  .  .  Our  19th  century  ideas  of 
evolution  tended  to  create  in  us  the  impression  that  hu¬ 
manity  had  made  a  smooth  and  even  ascent.  We  artifi¬ 
cially  graded  the  ascending  track  of  human  history,  leveled 
and  macadamized  it,  and  talked  of  inevitable  progress. 

Such  sentimental  optimism  has  ceased  even  to  be  com¬ 
forting,  so  utterly  untenable  has  it  become  to  every  well- 
instructed  mind.” 

Broadly  speaking,  every  feature  of  progress  is  accom¬ 
panied  by  some  feature  of  regress.  The  interaction  of 
these  forces  is  constant.  The  whole  historic  period  proves 


86 


Modernism 


it — life  and  death,  sorrow  and  joy,  success  and  failure, 
wealth  and  poverty,  health  and  sickness,  youth  and  age, 
construction  and  destruction,  union  and  division;  all  man’s 
history  is  like  the  swinging  pendulum,  and  with  him  there 
is  clearly  an  inherent  condition  of  evil  in  constant  mani¬ 
festation,  which  external  development,  no  matter  how 
great,  never  reaches  nor  alters.  Make  the  circumstances 
and  conditions  whatever  you  please,  this  always  manifests 
itself — man  is  a  sinner.  The  quantity  of  his  manifested 
sinfulness  may  vary,  in  certain  circumstances  be  more  or 
less  repressed,  but  nevertheless  there  abides  the  evidence 
in  some  form  of  the  real  quality  belonging  to  him,  that 
of  sin.  But  how  and  when  did  it  come?  Who  will  an¬ 
swer?  The  evolutionist  will  tell  you  it  is  simply  a  mental 
concept  resulting  from  man  establishing  certain  rules  and 
customs  which  were  considered  essential  to  the  well-being 
and  progress  of  the  race.  To  act  contrary  to  these  rules 
or  customs  was  called  sin,  and  then  of  course  there  arose 
the  need  of  corrective  and  punitive  measures.  Sin  is 
merely  relative  to  the  social  consciousness,  and  really  be¬ 
comes  a  matter  of  evolving  mentality. 

IV. 

What  are  to  be  the  conclusions  drawn  from  this  survey? 
First,  that  evolution  is  untenable  upon  scientific,  historic 
and  moral  grounds;  that  all  upon  which  it  is  based  is  sus¬ 
ceptible  of  much  simpler  explanation. 

Science  has  spoken.  Apart  from  its  statement  of  as¬ 
certained  fact,  it  is  fallible,  often  uncertain,  unproved. 
Let  our  selected  standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment — 
the  Holy  Scriptures — now  speak.  For  it  there  is  no  pre- 


Man's  History  and  Condition  87 

historic  period,  all  falls  within  the  realm  of  the  historic. 
It  goes  back  to  the  beginning. 

Look  down  the  long  record  of  the  historic  period, 
whether  you  consider  it  in  the  light  of  Scripture  or  as 
men  write  of  it,  and  upon  its  every  page  is  inscribed  a 
harrowing  tale  of  conquest  and  loss;  of  crime  and  blood; 
of  incessant  strife  between  good  and  evil;  of  ever-ming¬ 
ling  joy  and  sorrow;  of  laborious  construction  overthrown 
in  a  moment’s  destruction;  the  work  of  an  hour  blighting 
for  ever  the  labor  of  years;  of  toil  unremitting;  defects 
and  blemishes  everywhere,  even  when  by  comparison 
we  may  speak  of  greatest  brilliancy  in  both  morals  and 
intelligence.  All  of  this  while  there  is  still  maintained, 
according  to  God’s  promise,  that  orderly  operation  of 
nature  which  alone  conduces  to  the  existence  of  life. 
Even  here,  however,  the  operation  of  conflicting  forces 
are  at  work,  which  at  times  break  out  in  sudden  activity, 
and  seem  to  threaten  an  overthrow — warnings  of  that 
fiery  cataclysm  yet  to  come  (2  Pet.  3:  12).  There  is  a 
similarity  between  the  moral  and  natural  condition  of  the 
world  which  suggests  an  interrelation  of  striking  import 
to  the  open  mind.  After  all  does  not  the  world  lie  in 
wickedness?  Is  it  not  full  of  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  the 
lust  of  the  eyes,  and  the  pride  of  life?  Does  not  corrup¬ 
tion  through  lust  dominate  its  history?  Have  learning, 
invention,  philanthropy,  better  and  more  representative 
government,  improvement  in  social  conditions,  changed 
or  eradicated  the  deep-seated  moral  corruption  of  the 
race,  even  granting  much  outward  amelioration?  Can  you 
find  a  more  accurate  and  truthful  description  than  that 
given  in  Romans  1-3?  There  you  have  the  sensualist, 
the  moralist,  and  the  mere  religionist.  We  have  them 


88 


Modernism 


still  to-day  wearing  the  same  characters.  The  apostle’s 
conclusions  are  irrefutable.  Such  is  the  consistent  testi¬ 
mony  of  Scripture.* 

I  study  the  character  of  God  as  presented  in  Scripture, 
and  He  rises  before  me  as  a  Being  of  perfect  love,  yet  of 
uncompromising  hatred  of  evil;  full  of  mercy,  yet  by  no 
means  clearing  the  guilty;  inflexible  in  righteousness,  ab¬ 
solute  in  holiness,  yet  tender  in  compassion  and  full  of 
grace;  absolute  in  truth,  knowing  all  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end;  delighting  in  the  lowly  and  the  contrite,  but 
knowing  the  proud  afar  off — all-powerful,  all-knowing, 
all-present.  Could  it  be  possible  that  such  a  God  willed 
a  world  like  ours?  Can  it  be  what  He  purposed  it  should 
be?  Is  He  the  author  of  confusion  and  every  evil  work? 
How  reconcile  these  contrasts?  He  is  such  a  God  as  I 
desire  to  know,  but  how  explain  such  a  world  as  this? 
Science  can  give  no  answer.  Human  wisdom  cannot  solve 
the  enigma. 

On  the  other  hand  who  would  want  to  make  the  ac¬ 
quaintance  of  the  god  of  theistio  evolution?  He  can  only 
be  conceived  of  as  a  being,  who  threw  into  space,  and 
left  to  its  fate,  an  infinitesmal  cell  in  which  lay  latent  all 
the  potentiality  necessary  to  produce  such  a  creation  as 
we  know,  wonderful  in  its  order,  and  yet  so  grievously 
encumbered  with  elements  of  disorder,  productive  of  un¬ 
told  sorrow  and  suffering,  out  of  which  no  matter  how 
great  the  progress  no  evolution  is  attained.  Moreover  this 
god  cannot  enter  the  scene  which  has  grown  from  the 
cell,  he  cannot  reveal  himself  by  any  specific  act,  he  only 


*  See  Chap.  X.  as  to  Man. 


Man's  History  and  Condition  89 

becomes  self-disclosed  through  this  cell’s  continued  evolve- 
ment. 

What  so  effectually  answers  all  the  rising  questions  of 
the  troubled  mind  as  the  fall  of  man  which  Scripture 
teaches?  Bring  that  in,  and  the  mystery  is  unlocked. 
What  more  perfectly  illustrates  the  truth  of  the  matter 
than  those  matchless  parables  of  the  Good  Samaritan, 
the  prodigal  son,  and  the  lost  sheep?  They  not  only 
throw  light  on  man’s  history,  but  God’s  relation  to  it. 
And  so  with  Genesis  3.*  Who  can  fail  to  see  that  God 
there  becomes  the  Good  Samaritan,  the  welcoming  Fa¬ 
ther,  the  Good  Shepherd,  while  also  His  righteousness  and 
holiness  are  not  set  aside.  The  history  of  fallen  man 
opens  with  sacrifice  disclosed  as  the  way  of  meeting  his 
need  in  relation  to  God,  while  the  governmental  conse¬ 
quences  of  his  departure  as  far  as  this  world  is  concerned 
are  not  removed,  but  abide  as  a  necessary  witness  to  the 
initial  departure,  the  moral  results  of  which  have  tainted 
the  whole  race.  This  its  history  very  amply  declares. 

Questions  may  be  raised  as  to  why  God  permitted  all 
this  to  take  place.  But  what  is  man  that  he  should  reply 
against  God,  or  even  that  God  should  be  mindful  of  him? 
Besides,  these  questions  largely  ignore  the  truth  of  man’s 
distinctive  moral  being  as  created  by  God,  from  which 
develops  that  whole  cycle  of  moral  and  spiritual  interests 
which  are  inward,  and  of  which  science  can  give  no  right 
interpretation,  yet  which  every  human  being  knows  exist 
and  operate  in  him.  “For  who  of  men  hath  known  the 
things  of  a  man  except  the  spirit  of  the  man  which  is  in 


*  For  a  more  detailed  consideration  of  Gen.  3, 4  in  rela- 
tion  to  man,  his  needs,  and  God’s  ways  see  chapter  VI. 


90 


Modernism 


him?”  This  marks  him  out  as  distinct  from  all  other 
ranks  of  creation;  whatever  community  of  structure  there 
is  even  to  the  functions  of  the  soul,  here  there  is  absolute 
and  abiding  superiority.  The  dictum  of  Genesis,  to  which 
all  scientific  jact  witnesses,  is  that  of  each  according  to  its 
kind  in  the  whole  of  creation.  Thus  the  Genesis  account 
of  man’s  creation  and  his  fall  fits  in  perfectly  with  his 
subsequent  history,  to  the  character  of  which  all  Scrip¬ 
ture  and  his  own  records  bear  imited  testimony. 

This,  then,  is  devolution,  not  evolution.  Man’s  pres¬ 
ent  history  began  by  a  transfer  of  his  allegiance  to  a  pro¬ 
fessed  friend  who  was  in  reality  an  awful  enemy,  who 
has  become  the  god  of  this  world  through  man’s  default. 
He  actually  passed  over  his  headship  to  an  alien,  to  God’s 
enemy.  As  a  result  conspiracy,  pride,  self-aggrandize¬ 
ment,  with  all  that  comes  in  their  train,  have  stamped 
themselves  upon  human  history.  Everything  opposite  to 
the  mind  and  character  of  God  is  woven  into  it.  Man  is 
a  being  rolling  down  as  a  result  of  his  fatal  mis-step,  not 
one  evolving  upward.  Talk  of  progress  as  much  as  you 
please — and  in  certain  respects  there  is  much  to  be  said, 
though  it  is  largely  mechanical  and  outward,  not  spirit¬ 
ual  and  inward — there  is  the  abiding  condition  of  de¬ 
generacy  which  nothing  of  human  agency  overcomes.  It 
increases  in  manifestation  with  the  increase  of  the  race — 
there  is  a  constant  rolling  downward.  Sin  reigns.  Did 
God  inaugurate  a  reign  of  sin?  Man  did!  Death  reigns. 
Did  God  inaugurate  its  reign?  He  did,  as  His  answer  to 
man’s  act  of  rebellion,  and  as  expressive  of  changed  re¬ 
lationship;  hence,  too,  death  in  Scripture  becomes  viewed 
as  the  cause  of  defilement  in  God’s  sight.  Man,  through 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  is  permitted  to  pursue  his 


Man's  History  and  Condition  91 

self-chosen  path,  but  God  at  the  same  time  comes  in  to 
work  for  recovery,  and  these  two  lines  of  action  run 
through  all  Scripture,  the  former  ever  leading  downward, 
the  latter  upward  until  it  reaches  its  glorious  consum¬ 
mation  in  Him  of  whom  I  shall  now  particularly  speak, 
commencing  with  His  birth  into  this  world  of  sin  and 


sorrow. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


The  virgin  birth  of  Jesus:  is  it  fable  or  absolute  necessity 
in  view  of  all  the  requirements  of  the  case? 

SINCE,  after  all  the  prodigious  labor  and  study  be¬ 
stowed  upon  the  subject,  not  one  single  example 
can  be  produced  in  all  the  plant,  animal,  and 
human  kingdoms  of  one  “kind”  evolving  into  another 
“kind,”  but  the  unvarying  witness  is  to  each  producing 
continuously  and  only  its  own  kind,  so  is  it  true  of  man 
morally  and  spiritually.  Man  has  always  begotten  sons 
and  daughters  “in  his  likeness,  after  his  image”  (Gen.  5: 
3).  None  of  his  progeny,  even  the  most  wise  or  mighty, 
has  accomplished  deliverance  for  his  fellows.  The  loftiest 
thoughts  and  greatest  achievements  have  been  buried 
sooner  or  later  under  the  accumulation  of  creature  degen¬ 
eracy,  while  repeated  efforts  are  made  by  the  good  and 
great,  as  men  speak,  to  bring  up  out  of  the  debris  some 
ennobling  conception,  or  make  effective  some  uplifting 
program,  to  check  the  appalling  downward  tendency  of 
the  race.  The  record  of  the  greatest  and  best  efforts  has 
failure  written  upon  it — the  goal  unattained,  the  strife 
remains  constant  with  no  abiding  victory  in  sight.  It  all 
proves  that  man  cannot  be  his  own  saviour.  He  is  not 
sufficient  for  the  task,  the  power  and  wisdom  to  accom¬ 
plish  it  are  not  found  with  him.  The  conclusion  cannot  be 
successfully  resisted,  that  his  help  must  come  from  a 
source  external  to  himself.  But  if  evolutionary  views 
constitute  the  truth,  who  can  tell  how  this  shall  come? 
Nothing  of  the  supernatural  or  miraculous  is  admitted  as 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus 


93 


of  possible  occurence;  yet  if  help  must  be  derived  from 
a  source  external  to  himself  and  his  own  condition,  of 
what  nature  can  it  be  other  than  supernatural  and  mir¬ 
aculous?  Can  he  evolve  anything  from  animal  or  plant 
which  will  cure  the  virus  of  men?  There  is  no  prospect 
of  man’s  real  help  as  to  such  a  development,  either  in 
respect  to  himself,  or  animal,  or  plant,  in  view  of  his 
past  history,  and  that  even  as  to  animal  and  plant  he  has 
made  no  real  progress  in  the  domestication  of  either  since 
the  so-called  Neolithic  age.  Poor  record  indeed  it  would 
seem.  Besides,  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  of  any 
change  in  even  one  of  all  the  kinds  composing  the  plant 
and  animal  creation,  including  man.  This  is  the  hopeless¬ 
ness  of  evolution,  which  can  only  drive  to  agnosticism, 
and  in  its  logical  development  to  Nietzschism  and  its  in¬ 
famous  teachings  of  brute  force  and  the  super-man. 

All  becomes  illuminated  when  the  light  of  Scripture  is 
turned  upon  it.  It  offers  complete  explanation  as  to  man’s 
history  and  origin,  as  it  does  also  to  the  way  of  his  de¬ 
liverance.  It  concurs  with  all  that  may  be  said  as  to  the 
helplessness  of  man,  and  hence  that  all  help  must  come 
from  a  source  external  to  himself — “A  man  can  receive 
nothing  unless  it  be  given  him  out  of  heaven”  (John  3: 
27) — and  then  reveals  both  the  Source  and  the  manner  of 
its  activity. 

Man’s  Saviour  must  of  necessity  be  free  from  man’s 
physical  and  moral  virus,  for  it  is  this  which  makes  man 
incapable  of  being  his  own  saviour,  tainting  all  his  efforts, 
nullifying  his  highest  attainments. 

Further,  salvation  must  mean  more  than  being  lifted 
out  of  an  all-pervading  condition,  where  man’s  utter  help¬ 
lessness  is  fully  manifest.  It  involves  the  full  meeting  of 


94 


Modernism 


the  requirements  of  the  character  and  nature  of  God, 
who  is  immediately  upon  the  scene  when  Scripture  be¬ 
comes  our  standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment.  His 
presence  in  the  matter,  and  the  resultant  consequences, 
are  what  the  whole  fabric  of  evolution  is  designed  to 
blot  out,  to  effectually  remove  from  the  realm  of  necessity. 
The  direct  opposite  is  true  the  moment  we  open  Scrip¬ 
ture.  Man,  by  the  very  nature  of  his  origin,  his  descent 
from  God,  is  in  special  relationship  to  God  as  possessing 
not  only  soul  but  spirit.  As  always  with  relationship 
there  is  responsibility,  and  this  finds  expression  in  the 
one  prohibition  laid  upon  man  placed  in  a  state  of  inno¬ 
cence  in  the  enjoyment  of  earthly  blessing.  This  made 
obedience  fundamental  to  the  continual  enjoyment  of  the 
relationship  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  responsibility.  Man 
disobeyed.  His  consequent  behaviour  at  once  indicated 
a  complete  change  in  his  attitude,  feeling,  and  position 
Godward.  He  hides,  he  fears,  he  is  outside  of  the  place 
in  which  he  had  enjoyed  God’s  presence.  Man  had  fallen. 
Self-will,  lust,  guilt,  banishment,  all  now  characterize  his 
condition.  He  is  in  sin,  a  sinner.  Ever  since  he  has  be 
gotten  his  “kind,”  and  the  features  which  mark  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  his  history  have  stamped  themselves  upon  it 
to  this  very  hour.  I  repeat,  salvation  not  only  means 
being  lifted  out  of  a  condition  or  position,  but  the  re¬ 
moval  of  all  the  evil  fruits  of  human  depravity  according 
to  the  requirements  of  the  character  and  nature  of  God — 
not  simply  at-one-ment,  but  atonement.  This  immediately 
finds  typical  disclosure  in  the  action  of  God  Himself,  and 
in  that  of  Abel,  which  He  accepts,  while  the  way  of  Cain 
is  refused. 

Again,  not  only  must  man’s  Saviour  be  perfectly  free 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  95 

from  man’s  virus,  He  must  also  be  really  man.  Other¬ 
wise,  defeat  must  be  acknowledged  as  to  God’s  original 
purpose  and  plan  in  relation  to  man  as  created  by  Him. 
Satan  and  sin  would  have  triumphed  in  so  far  as  to 
compel  God  to  discard  His  work  and  do  something  wholly 
different.  The  character  and  power  of  God  would  be  thus 
seriously  compromised. 

If  salvation  is  not  possible  by  self-evolvement — and 
who  in  the  face  of  the  evidence  can  consider  it  possible? 

- — then  it  can  only  come  from  a  source  without  which  in¬ 
troduces  that  which  can  and  does  work  within,  producing 
such  outward  manifestation  that  what  constitutes  salva¬ 
tion  practically  is  realized — the  partaking  of  the  divine 
nature,  ^‘having  escaped  the  corruption  that  is  in  the 
world  through  lust”  (2  Pet.  1:  4).  This  then  embraces  two 
main  conceptions — the  objective  and  the  subjective.  The 
former,  God  producing  without  and  outside  of  man  what 
is  essential  for  the  attainment  of  the  purpose  in  view;  the 
latter,  God  producing  wdthin,  and  as  incorporating  in  man, 
what  is  also  essential.  The  truth  of  the  virgin  birth  is 
distinctively  linked  with  the  former,  and  yet  bears  a 
typal  significance  in  relation  to  the  latter,  for  are  not  the 
children  of  God  those  “who  have  been  bom,  not  of  blood 
[not  according  to  human  process],  nor  of  flesh’s  will 
[not  in  sin  and  according  to  lust],  nor  of  man’s  will 
[not  through  the  energy,  or  strength,  or  purpose  of  man], 
but  of  God?” — “bom  of  the  Spirit” — “According  to  His 
own  will  [i.  e.,  ‘having  so  purposed’  or  ‘willed  it’;  it  was 
the  fmit  of  His  own  mind,  and  so  a  free  gift]  He  begat  us 
by  the  word  of  tmth.”  And  this,  I  may  suggest  in  pass¬ 
ing,  gives  intimation  of  another  principle,  by  which  alone 
man  may  know  God,  even  jaith — heart-acceptance  of,  and 


96 


Modernism 


obedience  to,  whatever  word  of  testimony  God  may  be 
pleased  to  give,  for  man  is  now  outside  the  place  into 
which  God  alone  could  visibly  come  before  the  fall  to 
commune  with  His  creature,  and  in  which  all  His  earthly 
blessings  were  ministered  and  enjoyed  with  perfect  de¬ 
light,  no  evil  existing.  Then  sight  ruled,  we  may  say. 
But  man  rebelled,  fled  from  God’s  presence,  and  was  right¬ 
eously  driven  out  from  the  place  and  portion  to  which  he 
was  no  longer  entitled  by  reason  of  his  conduct  and 
course,  and  as  a  result  finds  himself  in  a  state  of  misery, 
suffering,  and  death.  It  could  not  be  otherwise,  but  it 
becomes  the  occasion  for  the  revelation  of  God  in  greater 
depths  of  love  and  unexpected  heights  of  grace,  yet  in  full¬ 
est  concord  with  righteousness  and  holiness.  Before  the  fall 
God  had  come  to  man,  now  with  man  outside  it  has  be 
come  a  question  of  man’s  approach  to  God.  Faith  and 
sacrifice  are  immediately  disclosed  as  the  only  way,  while 
that  which  may  appeal  to  human  nature  cind  wisdom  is 
rejected.  This  is  the  lesson  presented  in  the  history  of 
Abel  and  Cain  (Gen.  4;  Heb.  11).  Man,  seeing  and  en¬ 
joying  God,  disobeyed  and  lost  all.  Now  man  seeing  only 
himself  and  suffering  the  consequences  of  his  depravity, 
must  obey  by  faith,  if  he  is  to  know  acceptance  with  God, 
and  so  gain  all  that  sovereign  grace  in  its  richness  chooses 
to  bestow,  which  is  not  a  restored  earthly  paradise  but 
heavenly  and  eternal  blessing.  For  “where  sin  abounded 
grace  has  overbounded,  in  order  that,  even  as  sin  has 
reigned  in  [the  power  of]  death,  so  also  grace  might  reign 
through  righteousness  to  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord”  (Rom.  5:  21). 

The  necessity  of  the  case  is  obvious,  the  conclusion 
inevitable. 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus 


97 


The  two  afore-mentioned  primary  considerations  in  re¬ 
lation  to  man’s  Saviour  can  alone  be  secured  for  us 
through  such  an  operation  as  the  virgin  birth. 

The  Seed  of  the  woman  is  the  bruised  yet  victorious 
Deliverer  (Gen.  3:  15). 

“There  is  one  God  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and 
men,  the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  Himself  a  ransom 
for  all  to  be  testified  in  due  time”  (1  Tim.  2:  5,  6). 

“For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  Man  also  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  those  that  are  dead.  For  as  in  the  Adam  all  die, 
thus  also  in  the  Christ  all  shall  be  made  alive”  (1  Cor. 
IS:  21,22,  New  Trans.). 

He  who  is  thus  Victor,  and  Head  of  a  new  race,  must 
be  intrinsically  perfect,  for  apart  from  this  it  is  manifest 
there  is  no  hope  of  victory.  He  must  be  holy  as  to  person, 
harmless  or  guileless  as  to  character,  undefiled  by  any 
place  or  association  entered,  and  separate  from  sinners 
as  being  of  a  new  order  though  truly  man.  Thus  He 
could  offer  Himself  “without  spot”  to  God  as  the  one 
all-sufficing  sacrifice  for  sin  at  the  appointed  time,  that 
being  at  the  conclusion  of  what  Scripture  calls  the  proba¬ 
tionary  ages*  during  which  God  had  fully  tested  man  in 
various  ways  as  Scripture  reveals.  Thus  He  “became  to 
all  them  that  obey  Him,  author  of  eternal  salvation.”  In 
this  statement  we  return  to  faith,  since  obedience  is  men¬ 
tioned,  as  essential  for  man’s  blessing — “the  obedience 
of  faith.”  This  finds  its  illustration  and  development 
in  the  life  of  Abraham  to  which  Scripture  gives  so  large 
a  place. 

Now  the  Modernist  says,  “We  must  go  back  to  Jesus 


*  See  Chapter  X, 


98  Modernism 

for  salvation  ...  to  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists;  to  their 
traditions,  their  memories,  more  or  less  idealized  in  their 
way;  more  or  less  blurred  from  our  point  of  view.  We 
are  to  go  back  to  their  traditions,  and  then  through  them, 
and  see  Him  with  our  modern  eyes” — eyes  covered  with 
the  scales  of  evolutionary  science  and  criticism,  as  we 
have  previously  noted — “We  are  to  see  all  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  books  with  the  interpretative  and  instructive  re¬ 
sults  of  the  Higher  Criticism”  We  have  already  con¬ 
sidered  the  value  of  this. 

Stress  is  laid  upon  the  absence  of  any  positive  teaching 
as  to  the  birth  of  our  Lord  in  the  early  apostolic  preaching 
and  teaching,  and  that  in  only  two  of  the  Gospels  (Mat¬ 
thew  and  Luke)  do  we  get  the  account  of  His  birth — books 
which  are  generally  placed  later  in  the  first  century  than 
many  of  the  epistles.  The  argument  is  then  made  that 
nothing  concerning  His  birth,  except  His  Davidic  descent 
and  that  He  belonged  to  the  family  of  Joseph  of  Nazar¬ 
eth,  had  any  place  in  the  first  preaching  of  the  gospel  or 
the  first  knowledge  of  the  Church,  and  that  it  did  not 
form  a  part  of  the  basis  upon  which  faith  in  Jesus  was 
claimed. 

Now  granted  that  the  chronology  of  the  books  gives 
the  order  above  claimed,  though  criticism  has  not  reached 
conclusive  results  as  to  all  involved  in  the  problem,  the 
argument  will  not  stand.  Luke  is  considered  even  by  the 
critics  as  a  very  reliable  historian,  and  as  the  companion 
of  Paul  is  supposed  to  write  what  the  apostle  himself 
believed  as  to  the  Gospel  narrative  (where  is  God  in  all 
this,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  Divine  purpose?);  he  states 
in  his  once  questioned  but  now  fully  authenticated  intro¬ 
duction:  “Forasmuch  as  many  have  undertaken  to  draw 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus 


99 


up  a  relation  (or  narrative)  concerning  the  matters  juVy 
believed  among  us,  as  those  who  from  the  beginning  were 
eye-witnesses  of  and  attendants  on  the  Word  have  de¬ 
livered  them  to  us,  it  seemed  good  to  me  also,  accurately 
acquainted  from  the  origin  with  all  things,  to  write  to  thee 
with  method,  most  excellent  Theophilus,  that  thou  might- 
est  kmiv  the  certainty  of  those  things  in  which  thou  hast 
been  instructed”  Luke  then  is  not  writing  of  new  things 
but  of  old,  even  that  which  was  from  the  beginning,  as 
John  says,  and  these  he  certifies  to  his  friend,  who  had 
been  already  instructed  in  them — not  new  things;  hence 
the  virgin  birth  must  have  been  one  of  the  old  things  in 
which  instruction  was  given,  and  one  of  the  matters  fully 
believed  among  those  early  Christians.  Only  of  such 
things  is  Luke  writing,  and  he  in  great  detail  records  the 
virgin  birth. 

Matthew  has  no  preface  like  Luke,  but  presents  the 
genealogy  of  Christ  as  Son  of  David  and  of  Abraham  in 
such  a  way  as  to  make  Mary,  not  Joseph,  the  last  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  line  before  Jesus;  she  is  counted  as  13  in 
the  third  series  of  14  generations.  The  Evangelist  then 
marks  how  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  this  and  also  de¬ 
fines  the  personality  and  character  of  Jesus.  It  may  be 
of  interest  to  note  that  the  line  of  descent  from  the  cap¬ 
tivity  is  traced  from  that  king  of  whom  it  is  recorded  that 
he  should  not  have  a  man  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of 
David  (Jer.  22:  30;  36:  30).  Joseph  is  in  this  line.  If  Jesus 
were  his  son  His  title  would  be  null  and  void,  or  God’s 
word  proved  untrue;  but  the  record  stands:  “Joseph  the 
husband  of  Mary,  of  whom  was  born  Jesus,”  not  Jacob 
begat  Joseph,  and  Joseph  begat  Jesus.  Nevertheless,  He 
was  truly  of  David  through  Mary  (who  also  belonged  to 


100 


Modernism 


the  royal  line  as  shown  in  the  genealogy  in  Luke,  which 
is  undoubtedly  of  her  side),  and  also  legally  through 
Joseph,  since  in  the  provision  of  Jewish  law  Joseph  stood 
in  the  position  of  father. 

These  two  accounts  establish  the  same  fact  from  differ¬ 
ent  viewpoints,  while  their  perfect  suitability  to  the  speci¬ 
fic  purpose  of  each  writer  is  apparent  from  a  study  of 
the  Gospels  themselves. 

It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  Christ,  in  the  moral  per¬ 
fectness  of  both  conduct  and  essence  as  presented  through 
out  the  New  Testament,  as  having  that  glory  and  dignity 
of  person  and  p)osition  conveyed  in  the  titles  the  Son  of 
God  and  the  Son  of  Man,  apart  from  admitting  the  truth 
of  the  virgin  birth — a  specific,  direct,  and  essential  creative 
act  of  God.  This  was  true  in  relation  to  the  first  man, 
and  is  true  of  the  Second  Man.  Sinless  humanity  as  the 
product  of  a  sinful  source,  a  clean  thing  brought  out  of 
an  unclean — Jesus  begotten  of  man  “in  his  likeness,  after 
his  image,”  even  as  Seth  of  Adam — is  an  utter  absurdity 
of  which  much  stronger  language  might  be  used.  Of  a 
piece  with  the  denial  of  man’s  special  creation,  it  is  much 
worse  in  what  it  involves.  Evolutionists  have  been  search¬ 
ing  for  such  an  evolvement  of  an  entirely  new  kind  of  being 
and  life  out  of  an  old  species.  All  creation  and  its  order 
witnesses  against  the  possibility  of  such  a  thing.  That  like 
produces  like  is  an  unchanging  law.  Nature  is  a  com¬ 
petent  teacher  of  many  unchanging  truths  which  rule  in 
the  spiritual  as  well  as  the  natural  realm.  In  both  special 
creation  governs,  in  both  the  law  of  production  is  “each 
according  to  its  kind,”  in  both  death  and  resurrection 
evidently  rule.  “That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh. 
That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.”  The  one  does 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  101 

not  evolve  from  the  other,  but  each  is  abidingly  special 
and  distinct. 

The  necessity  in  man's  case  is  manifestly  a  new  be¬ 
ginning,  as  special  and  distinct  in  its  character  as  that 
inaugurated  in  man's  creation  on  the  sixth  day.  With 
him  there  was  communitv  of  structure  with  all  before 
him,  but  absolute  distinctness  of  descent  and  character  of 
being.  He  is  spoken  of  as  “the  figure  of  Him  that  was 
to  come."  There  is  comparison  to  make,  similarity  to  note, 
and  yet  the  greatest  possible  difference  to  emphasize. 
Still  we  may  rightly  expect  to  find,  though  with  a  trans¬ 
cendency  becoming  the  wonder  of  the  operation  and  the 
revelation,  a  counterpart  of  the  first  in  Him  who  is  thus 
referred  to  as  the  coming  One,  who  indeed  has  come,  ful¬ 
filling  the  original  promise  of  the  woman's  Seed,  the 
smitten  yet  victorious  Smiter,  hence  the  true  Deliverer 
for  the  serpent-encoiled  race  of  men. 

I  suggest  that  it  is  the  counterpart  of  the  similarity  yet 
distinctness  (in  fact,  transcendency)  which  is  true  of  the 
first  man  in  relation  to  the  lower  creation,  which  we  find 
also  true  of  the  Second  Man  in  relation  to  the  first  man. 
And  as  in  the  one,  so  in  the  other;  it  is  the  result  of 
divine  intervention,  it  is  through  the  supernatural  and  the 
miraculous.  It  is  in  this  that  the  virgin  birth  finds  its 
place  as  the  mode  of  operation.  Let  me  state  the  matter 
in  a  threefold  way. 

1.  The  operation  here  contemplated  was  as  truly  a  di¬ 
vine  act  as  that  recorded  in  Genesis,  and  was  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  what  was  entirely  new,  as  also  was  man  in 
relation  to  the  rest  of  creation — our  present  theme. 

2.  There  was  produced  in  this  operation  that  which 


102 


Modernism 


bears  all  the  evidence  of  community  of  structure  as  to 
body  and  human  personality  as  between  the  Second  Man 
and  the  first,  the  counterpart  of  which  is  found  also  to 
exist  when  we  compare  the  first  man  and  the  lower  crea¬ 
tion  in  relation  to  body  and  soul.  (Treated  of  in  Chap.  V.) 

3.  With  this  was  associated  in  perfect  union  that  which, 
if  we  speak  of  Adam,  was  not  found,  and  never  will  be,  in 
any  lov/er  order  of  life,  viz.,  spirit,  by  the  special  in¬ 
breathing  of  God;  and  if  we  speak  of  the  Second  Man, 
that  which  was  not,  and  never  will  be,  found  in  any 
other  order  of  man,  viz..  Deity,  though  there  be  between 
Him  and  man  community  of  structure  as  to  body  and 
personality.  So  between  Adam  and  the  lower  creation 
there  was  community  of  structure  as  to  body  and  soul, 
though  he  was  given  spirit,  which  none  of  the  lower  crea¬ 
tion  possessed.  In  the  Second  Man  there  is  the  perfect 
blending  of  Deity  with  perfect  and  sinless  humanity  as 
to  the  truth  of  His  person.  His  every  thought,  word  and 
act.  (Treated  of  in  Chap.  VI.) 

While,  for  example.  Scripture  distinguishes  as  to  the 
activities  of  soul  and  spirit,  yet  it  also  links  both  together 
so  that  the  relation  is  mutual  and  constant.  The  reasoner 
may  say,  Jesus  hungered,  slept,  prayed;  was  not  that  the 
man?  He  created  bread,  fish,  and  raised  the  dead;  was 
not  that  God?  I  refuse  to  thus  divide  His  life’s  activities 
and  experiences,  and  answer  that  He  who  is  thus  variously 
presented  to  my  wondering  heart  and  mind  is  revealed  as 
being  in  the  perfect  unity  and  indivisibility  of  His  person 
both  God  and  man,  and  so  in  His  every  act  both  the 
Deity  and  humanity  had  their  part;  but  to  attempt  to 
define  just  in  what  proportion  is  most  abhorrent  to  any 
Spirit-taught  soul,  for  it  is  a  virtual  desecration  of  the 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus 


103 


sacred  Person  of  our  holy  Saviour  and  Lord.  How  can 
we  possibly  do  it  when  it  is  even  beyond  human  ken  to 
separate,  or  accurately  distinguish,  between  the  activities 
of  soul  and  spirit  in  man?  The  Scriptures  give  no  basis 
for  such  dissection  as  to  Deity  and  humanity  in  Christ. 
We  may  distinguish  as  to  His  use  of  the  attributes  of 
Deity,  but  that  is  another  matter,  and  not  within  the 
scope  of  our  present  theme. 

Let  our  attention  be  now  given  to  the  statements  of 
Scripture  as  to  the  virgin  birth. 

1.  The  power  operating  is  that  oj  the  Holy  Spirit. 
“She  was  found  with  child  of  the  Holy  Spirit "...  for 
that  which  is  conceived  in  her  is  of  the  Holy  Spirit’' 
(Matt.  1:  18,20).  “The  Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon 
thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow 
thee  .  .  .  For  no  word  of  God  shall  be  void  of  power” 
(Luke  1:  35,  37).  To  these  may  be  added  another  tes¬ 
timony  which  must  be  more  carefully  considered  a  little 
later:  “Wherefore  when  He  cometh  into  the  world.  He 
saith.  Sacrifice  and  offering  Thou  wouldest  not,  but  a 
body  didst  Thou  prepare  for  Me  ...  to  do  Thy  will,  O 
God  ...  by  which  will  we  have  been  sanctified  through 
the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all” 
(Heb.  10:  5-10). 

2.  The  vessel  in  which  the  power  operates  is  human. 
“Now  the  birth  (or,  begetting)  of  Jesus  Christ  was  on  this 
wise” — marking  distinction  from  all  those  mentioned  in 
the  previous  record — “When  His  mother  Mary  had  been 
betrothed  to  Joseph,  before  they  came  together,  she  was 
found  with  child” — hence  a  virgin,  as  Luke  affirms  (1: 
27),  and  also  Mary  herself  in  her  statement  to  the  angel 


104 


Modernism 


(1:  34).  “Now  all  this  is  come  to  pass  that  it  might  be 
fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  Lord  through  the 
prophet,  saying,  Behold,  the  virgin  shall  be  with  child, 
and  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  they  shall  call  his  name 
Immanuel,  which  is,  being  interpreted,  God  with  us” 
(Matt.  1:  18-23). 

3.  The  object  attained  is  the  conception  and  birth  oj 
that  which  is  holy,  and  called  the  Son  oj  God.  With  this 
the  words  of  Elizabeth  agree,  who,  “filled  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,”  cried  out  on  the  occasion  of  Mary’s  visit  to  her, 
“Blessed  art  thou  among  women,  and  blessed  is  the  fruit 
of  thy  womb.  And  whence  is  this  to  me,  that  the  mother 
of  my  Lord  should  come  unto  me?”  (Luke  1:  35,  41-43). 

The  power  working  is  divine,  omnipotent. 

The  vessel  used  is  human,  and  in  the  very  nature  of 
the  case  as  alone  helpless,  hence  only  made  useful  as  be¬ 
ing  “highly  favored,”  and  the  Lord  being  present  (Luke 
1:  28). 

That  which  was  thus  begotten  and  came  forth  is  holy, 
while  yet  it  was  true  that  development  and  birth  partook 
of  the  natural  order — “God  sent  forth  His  Son  born  (or, 
come)  of  a  woman”  (Gal.  4:  4) — so  that  “body,”  “flesh,” 
“blood,”  are  terms  applicable  to  Him  as  much  as  to  men 
generally.  But  in  this,  whatever  similarity  there  may  be, 
the  difference  and  distinctions  which  Scripture  makes  must 
be  carefully  noted. 

First,  let  me  call  attention  to  the  use  of  the  word 
‘"flesh”  in  relation  to  our  Lord.  I  have  referred  to  the 
passage  which  speaks  of  the  prepared  body.  There  need 
be  no  doubt  as  to  its  character.  “Since  then  the  children 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  105 

are  sharers*  in  jlesh  and  blood,  He  also  himself  in  like 
manner  partook*  of  the  same.”  It  was  therefore  a  body 
like  that  of  man,  its  materials  were  the  same,  no  matter 
what  limitations  it  may  be  found  necessary  to  make  from 
the  moral  side,  and  notwithstanding  its  preparation,  in  a 
distinctly  special  and  supernatural  operation  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Here  then  we  have  community  of 
structure  which  argues  for  the  operation  of  natural  pro¬ 
cesses,  but  these  set  in  motion  by  and  overshadowed  in 
their  accomplishment  by  Divine  power.  There  is  not 
community  of  descent  from  man  in  this  case,  anymore 
than  there  is  of  man  from  the  ape  because  of  the  com¬ 
munity  of  structure  between  them  upon  which  the  scientist 
so  strenuously  insists  ■  and  falsely  builds.  This  then  is 
identity  with  human  form,  in  fact  it  involves  the  pos¬ 
session  of  true  humanity,  but  not  the  humanity  of  fallen 
men,  as  we  shall  see.  He  became  “in  the  likeness  of  men,” 
that  is,  the  mode  of  His  manifestation  resembled,  was 
similar  to,  what  men  are;  and  He  was  found  “in  figure 
as  a  man,”  which  refers  to  His  form,  shape,  mien,  as 
externally  regarded  (Phil.  2:  7,8).  With  this  we  may 
associate  the  statement,  “the  body  of  His  flesh”  (Col.  1: 
22).  But  note  that  this  is  peculiar,  and  should  lead  to  the 
consideration  of  difference,  whatever  similarity  it  may 
denote,  for  it  does  not  say  “His  body  of  flesh,”  but  ‘^His 
flesh.”  This  distinction,  it  would  appear,  is  borne  out 
by  another  expression,  “God,  sending  His  own  Son  in  the 


*  Two  entirely  different  words  in  Greek.  The  former 
marks  “the  characteristic  sharing  of  the  common  fleshly 
nature  as  it  pertains  to  the  human  race  at  large/’  and  the 
latter  signifies  “the  unique  fact  of  the  incarnation  as  a 
voluntary  acceptance  of  humanity”  {Dr.  Vincent.). 


106 


Modernism 


likeness  of  flesh  of  sin”  (Rom.  8:  3).'*'  Likeness  here  is 
the  same  word  as  used  in  Phil.  2:  7.  Whatever  resem¬ 
blance  is  found,  there  is  however  intrinsic  difference,  so 
that  it  is  His  flesh  by  way  of  distinction  and  eminence. 
Again  Acts  2:  31,  “nor  did  His  flesh  see  corruption.” 
More  than  a  hint  of  this  is  conveyed  to  us  in  the  words, 
“Through  the  veil,  that  is.  His  flesh”  (Heb.  10:  20), 
when  we  consider  the  beautiful  typical  significance  of  this 
veil  in  the  tabernacle.  True,  it  is  here  connected  with  the 
thought  of  atonement,  but  that  does  not  interfere  with, 
it  rather  enhances,  the  lesson  it  teaches  as  to  His  flesh. 
Not  only  the  fact  of  it  is  essential  to,  but  the  character 
of  it  has  a  most  important  bearing  upon,  the  true  value 
of  His  death.  The  fact  of  it,  with  what  it  involves,  is 
found  in  His  being  “made  some  little  inferior  to  angels  on 
account  of  the  suffering  of  death”  (Heb.  2:9). 

This  word  flesh  is  also  used  as  denoting  our  Lord’s 
kinship  or  kindred  as  man  (Acts  2:  30;  Rom.  1:  8;  9:  5; 
2  Tim.  2:8).  And  it  refers  to  the  period  of  His  existence 
among  men,  and  participation  in  the  circumstances  con- 


*  “In  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,”  A.  V.  Lit.,  of  the 
flesh  of  sin.  The  choice  of  words  is  specially  noteworthy. 
Paul  does  not  say  simply,  “He  came  in  flesh”  (IJohn  4: 
2;  1  Tim.  3:16),  for  this  would  not  have  expressed  the 
relation  of  His  humanity  to  the  great  question  of  sin.  Not 
in  the  flesh  of  sin,  which  would  have  represented  Him 
as  partaking  of  sin.  Not  in  the  likeness  of  flesh,  since  He 
was  really  and  entirely  human;  but,  in  the  likeness  of  the 
flesh  of  sin :  really  human,  conformed  in  appearance  to  the 
flesh  whose  characteristic  is  sin,  yet  sinless.  Christ  ap¬ 
peared  in  a  body  which  was  like  that  of  other  men  in  so 
far  as  it  consisted  of  flesh,  and  was  unlike,  in  so  far  as 
the  flesh  was  not  flesh  of  sin.  (Drs.  Vincent  and  Dickson.). 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus 


107 


nected  therewith,  in  such  passages  as  2  Cor.  5:  16;  Heb. 
S:  7;  1  Pet.  4:  1.  There,  of  course,  underlies  this  the  fact 
that  He  came  in  flesh  (1  John  4:  2,  3;  2  John  7;  John  1; 
14;  1  Tim.  3:  16).  Thus  we  learn  that  in  the  virgin  birth 
our  Lord  took  upon  Himself,  in  fact  became  constituted 
in,  community  of  structure  with  man  in  the  elements  of 
material  form  and  personality — body,  soul,  and  spirit. 

Now  since  this  term  “flesh”  is  used  of  our  Lord,  and  is 
applied  also  to  all  mankind (1  Pet.  2:  24;  Gen.  6:  12),  and 
is  made  to  include,  not  simply  the  body  and  its  consti¬ 
tuent  parts,  but  “the  accessory  idea  of  frailty  and  prone¬ 
ness  to  sin,”  being  extended  in  application  to  the  evil 
nature  “as  an  active  principle  of  corruption,”  does  it 
apply  in  this  full  scope  to  Him?  When  it  says,  “The 
Word  became  flesh,”  is  it  such  thoughts  we  are  to  enter¬ 
tain?  Some  would  have  us  think  so,  while  they  make  His 
sinlessness  a  matter  of  self-mastery.  This  view  is  con¬ 
nected  with  the  denial  of  the  virgin  birth  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  ^‘Kenosis*^  on  the  other,  at  which 
we  must  look  later.  Modernists  speak  of  Jesus  as  “God 
incarnate  in  human  form,  and  under  all  human  limita¬ 
tions,”  and  “of  a  real  incarnation,  the  Word  made  flesh; 
the  real  humanity  of  Christ  with  human  limitations,  ex¬ 
cept  that  of  sinfulness,”  which  cannot  mean,  however,  that 
He  was  intrinsically  sinless,  for  “He  was  mightily  tempted 
of  the  devil  like  other  men.  These  temptations  really 
appealed  to  Him,  and  He  had  to  wrestle  with  them  to 
overcome  them.”  This  could  only  be  as  having  that  within 
which  responded  to  the  temptation,  but  which  He  mas¬ 
tered,  and  so  was  not  sinful.  This  really  means  the  attri¬ 
bution  to  Him  of  all  that  “flesh”  means  in  its  application 
to  the  race  of  men.  That  this  is  not  so  I  have  already 


108 


Modernism 


plainly  intimated.  But  there  are  other  scriptures  which 
positively  forbid  it. 

“In  Him  is  no  sin”  (1  John  3:5). 

“Who  did  no  sin”  (1  Peter  2:  22). 

“Who  knew  no  sin”  (2  Cor.  5:  21). 

This  is  the  testimony  of  three  men — John,  Peter,  Paul. 
Neither  intrinsically,  actively,  nor  as  a  matter  of  objective 
knowledge,  the  having  of  it  as  an  object  to  be  occupied 
with  as  in  Himself,  had  sin  any  place  in  relation  to  Him. 
It  is  in  the  light  of  this  alone  that  there  is  special  mean¬ 
ing  to  the  appellation  of  “holy”  as  applied  to  Him  from 
the  time  of  conception  (Luke  1:  35;  Acts  3:  14;  4:  27, 
30;  Rev.  3:  7;  Acts  2:  27;  13:  35;  Heb.  7:  26).  Except 
in  the  last  three  passages  the  word  is  hagios,  a  word  sig¬ 
nifying  sacred,  as  set  apart  to  God  according  to  what 
suits  His  nature  and  requirements.  So  the  Lord  speaks 
of  Himself  as  the  One  “whom  the  Father  has  sanctified 
{hagiazOy  made  holy  as  separated  for  special  purposes) 
and  sent  into  the  world”  (John  10:  36).  This  reaches 
beyond  time  and  into  the  past  Divine  eternal  counsels,  hut 
makes  the  truth  of  the  virgin  birth  essential  in  relation 
to  His  coming  into  the  world.  His  coming  in  flesh,  other¬ 
wise  the  polluted  channel  of  human  generation  would 
defile  the  Sanctified  One,  and  we  read  that  He  was  the 
“undefiled.”  The  word  in  the  last  three  passages  is 
hosios,  properly  meaning,  “right  by  intrinsic  or  divine 
character;  thus  distinguished  from  hagios  which  relates  to 
purity  from  defilement,”  It  may  be  said  that  these  terms 
are  applied  to  other  and  ordinary  men;  can  they  mean 
more  in  relation  to  Jesus  than  they  do  in  relation  to  them? 
They  must  in  view  of  the  other  testimonies  I  have  ad- 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus 


109 


duced.  Furthermore,  only  in  this  light  can  such  a  pas¬ 
sage  as  1  Peter  1:  19  be  understood:  “Christ,  who  was 
foreknown  indeed  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  but 
was  manifested  at  the  end  of  the  times  for  your  sakes, 
who  through  Him  are  believers  in  God,”*  is  spoken  of  as 
“a  Lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot;”  and  with 
this  agrees  the  statement  that  He  “through  the  eternal 
Spirit  offered  Himself  without  blemish  unto  God”  (Heb. 
9:  14).  The  word  “blemish”  in  both  these  passages  is 
amomos,  and  it  is  used  exclusively  of  the  Lord  or  those 
who  by  faith  are  accepted  by  God  and  stand  in  the  per¬ 
fectness  of  Christ  as  their  Saviour  (Eph.  1:  4;  5:  27;  Col. 
1:  22;  Jude  24;  Rev.  14:  5).  Here  sin  either  as  to  nature 
or  practice  cannot  be  thought  of  as  existing,  for  He  is  of 
holier  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity,  or  look  upon  sin. 
The  other  word  is  asphilos,  without  stain  or  blot,  and  in 
addition  to  being  used  of  the  Lord  is  connected  with 
doctrine (1  Tim.  6:  14) ;  and  one’s  life  and  conduct  (James 
1:  27  ;  2  Pet.  3:  14).  The  former  perhaps  links  our 
thought  more  with  the  person,  the  latter  with  the  person’s 
activity.  Now  let  me  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  as 
indicated  by  the  use  of  both  hagios  and  amomos  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  believers  (Col.  1:  22,  and  other  passages),  their 
perfectness  as  to  standing  before  God,  their  acceptability 
to  Him,  and  that  forever,  stands  or  falls  with  the  absolute 
perfectness  and  sinlessncss  of  Christ.  There  is  another 
word  used  as  to  believers  in  Col.  1:  22,  which  could  have 
no  application  to  Christ,  because  of  the  eternal  value  of  His 
sacrifice  for  sin  as  the  One  without  blemish  and  without 


*  Here  note  similarity  of  thought  with  the  Lord’s  words 
in  John  10:  36  to  which  I  have  previously  referred. 


110 


Modernism 


spot.  I  refer  to  the  word  “unreprovable,”  or  blameless 
(anegkletoSj  meaning  not  arraigned,  or  accused),  for  it 
plainly  implies  the  existence  of  that  which  made  us  sub¬ 
ject  to  reproof  and  accusation,  but  which  has  now  been 
removed  so  that  we  are  “perfected  forever”  by  the  one 
offering  of  Christ  (Heb.  10:  18). 

There  can  be  no  honest  question  as  to  the  way  in  which 
the  truth  of  the  virgin  birth  is  interwoven  with  New 
Testament  teaching  concerning  the  person  and  work  of 
Christ,  while,  as  might  be  expected,  it  also  bears  a  relation 
to  the  place  of  those  who  derive  all  their  benefits  through 
faith  in  Christ,  and  are  subjects  of  a  divine  work  which 
bears  an  analogy  to  the  features  of  the  virgin  birth,  so  that 
it  may  be  said  of  the  believer  as  identified  with  the  divine 
work  of  new  birth,  “Whosoever  is  begotten  of  God  doeth 
no  sin,  because  his  seed  abideth  in  him:  and  he  cannot 
sin,  because  he  is  begotten  of  God”  (1  John  3:  9). 

Before  concluding  this  subject  it  may  be  as  well  to  call 
attention  to  a  distinction  in  terms  used  in  Heb.  2:  14  pre¬ 
viously  quoted. 

“It  must  be  noted  here,  that  while  the  children  are  said 
to  be  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood — this  ‘partaking’  being  a 
real  having  in  common,  a  participation  of  the  most  thorough 
kind — in  His  own  ‘taking  part’  another  word  is  used  which 
implies  limitation.  It  does  not  indeed  show  the  character 
of  the  limitation;  but  the  difference  between  the  words 
makes  us  necessarily  ask  what,  in  fact,  that  was;  and  the 
answer  comes  to  us  immediately,  that  while  His  was  true 
humanity  in  every  particular  necessary  to  constitute  it 
that,  yet  humanity  as  men  have  it,  the  humanity  of  fallen 
men,  was  not  His.  Here  there  must  be  strict  limitation. 
We  must  add,  as  the  apostle  does  afterwards  with  regard 
to  His  temptation,  ‘sin  apart.’  Sin,  with  the  consequences 


The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus 


111 


of  sin,  He  could  not  take.  Death  could  have  no  power  over 
Him,  except  as  He  might  submit  Himself  voluntarily  to 
it,  and  this  He  did;  but  it  was  obedience  to  His  Father’s 
will,  and  no  necessity  of  His  condition,  as  it  is  of  ours.”* 

In  every  way  Scripture  guards  the  truth  of  Christ’s 
intrinsic  sinlessness.  To  this  the  virgin  birth  is  the  neces* 
sary  corollary.  It  must  be  accepted  as  the  truth  of  God. 


*  Numerical  Bible ^  Hebrews,  p.  23. 


CHAPTER  V. 


The  humanity  of  Jesus:  What  are  its  characteristic 
elements?  What  was  its  state  in  Him? 

Was  it  real  and  true  humanity? 

I. 


IN  the  previous  chapter  I  have  partially  anticipated 
some  of  the  features  of  the  subject  now  to  be  con¬ 
sidered,  and  in  this  I  have  at  least  laid  the  founda¬ 
tion  upon  which  a  full  development  may  be  given  of  the 
important  truth  relating  to  our  Lord’s  humanity. 

First,  His  body,  though  specially  prepared,  is  really  a 
natural  body — “flesh  and  blood” — come  forth  according 
to  natural  process,  but  this  set  in  motion  by  Divine  power 
and  overshadowed  in  its  development  and  accomplishment 
by  the  Divine  Presence,  so  that  the  Child  born  and  Son 
given,  though  truly  of  Mary  as  born  of  her,  is  intrinsically 
holy.  He  is  spoken  of  as  man,  and  as  having  come  of 
Israel  concerning  the  flesh,  being  of  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
and  a  Jew,  as  the  woman  of  Samaria  testifies;  Jesus  Him¬ 
self  confirming  it  in  saying,  “IFe  know  what  we  worship: 
for  salvation  is  of  the  Jews.”  But,  as  I  have  already 
intimated,  there  is  much  more  than  simply  identity  with 
man  in  outward  form.  As  bom  of  Mary,  His  humEinity 
is  real  and  full,  not  only  body,  but  also  soul  and  spirit. 
It  is  thus  that  scripture  speaks  of  Him.  Indeed,  if  other 
wise.  He  would  not  be  truly  man,  as  the  record  and  teach¬ 
ing  of  Scripture  so  plainly  intimate  unless  its  language  is 
totally  deceptive.  This  then  involves  the  truth  of  what 
man  really  is.  Misconception  as  to  this  cannot  fail  to 
affect  important  truth  as  to  Christ,  just  as  error  as  to  the 


The  Humanity  of  Jesus 


113 


origin  of  man  also  casts  its  evil  shadow  over  the  origin  of 
Jesus,  for  both  are  presented  as  acts  of  Divine  power, 
Adam  being  spoken  of  as  a  “figure  of  Him  that  was  to 
come,”  and  both,  though  quite  distinct  (the  latter  trans- 
cendently  so),  really  stand  or  fall  together  in  this  par 
ticular. 

What  then  is  man?  He  is  “spirit,  and  soul,  and  body” 
(1  Thess.  5:  23).  With  the  simple  affirmation  of  this  as 
being  the  consistent  testimony  of  Scripture,  I  must  leave 
my  reader  for  the  present,*  while  passing  on  to  show  that 
all  of  these  features  of  man's  being  are  ascribed  to  the 
Lord.  I  need  not  say  more  as  to  the  body.  His  spirit 
is  spoken  of  in  Matt.  27:  50;  Mark  2:8;  8:  12;  Luke  2: 
40  (note  that  similar  language  is  used  of  John,  Luke  1: 
80);  10:  21;  23:  46;  John  11:  33;  13:  21;  19:  30;  His 
soul — Matt.  26:  38;  Mark  14:  34;  John  12:  27;  Acts  2: 
31.  That  the  spirit  is  not  the  Holy  Spirit  is  at  once  clear 
by  a  comparison  of  these  passages  and  those  which  speak 
of  Him  in  relation  to  the  Lord.  Further,  the  idea  that 
the  spirit  thus  spoken  of  was  His  Deity,  either  viewed  as 
completely  circumscribed  by  His  human  condition,  or  that 
which  was  gradually  evolved  into  this  by  “two  corres¬ 
ponding  movements  ...  a  descent  of  the  divine  conscious¬ 
ness,  and  an  ascent  of  the  human  consciousness,”  so  that 
“there  was  a  progressive  self-communication  of  the  divine 
Logos  to  Jesus,  and  a  moral  growth  of  Jesus  in  holiness 
keeping  step  with  the  former”  making  “a  gradual  com¬ 
munication  of  this  divinity  to  the  God-man,”  is  nothing 
but  pure  speculation  for  which  Scripture  furnishes  no 
basis.  This  is  evident  when  we  compare  the  passages 


*  See  Chapter  X. 


114 


Modernism 


now  before  us  and  those  which  relate  to  the  Incarnation 
from  the  side  of  Deity.  No,  the  Lord  possessed  a  true 
human  spirit,  that  which  is  mein’s  distinctive  part,  being 
that  distinct  addition  which  marked  him  off  from  the 
lower  creation  and  distinguished  him  as  being  created  in 
the  image  of  God.  These  considerations  give  us  an  un¬ 
derstanding  of  that  important  statement,  ‘Tt  behoved  Him 
in  all  things  to  be  made  like  unto  His  brethren.”  It  is 
important,  not  only  as  fixing  our  thoughts  as  to  the  Lord’s 
humanity,  but  also  in  the  reasons  adduced  for  it  which 
immediately  follow  (Heb.  2:  17,18). 

Now  this  apparently  broad  and  all-inclusive  statement 
must  not  be  isolated,  and  made  to  mean  more  than  other 
passages  of  Scripture  would  allow.  It  must  be  considered 
in  the  light  of  the  whole  scriptural  testimony.  Just  as  the 
truth  of  the  virgin  birth  and  the  action  of  Divine  power 
which  it  presents  must  not  be  pressed  so  as  to  make  the 
Lord  other  than  truly  man  in  body,  soul,  and  spirit  as  born 
of  Mary,  so  this  statement  of  being  in  all  things  like  His 
brethren  must  not  be  pressed  to  the  opposite  extreme  and 
made  to  mean  not  only  likeness  in  real  humanity  and  the 
circumstances  incident  to  this,  but  also  in  relationships 
to  God,  such  being  like  those  of  men  generally,  or  of 
Israel  in  particular,  for  to  both  Christ  bore  kinship  by 
birth  and  lineage.  Scripture  guards  the  truth  from  both 
sides.  While  insisting  therefore  in  the  fullest  way  upon 
the  real  humanity  of  our  Lord,  we  must  distinguish  be¬ 
tween  this  and  His  being  in  the  same  state  or  condition 
as  that  of  men  or  Israel  in  relation  to  God,  no  matter 
how  fully  in  spirit  and  by  experience  He  entered  into  the 
circumstances  connected  with  the  state  or  condition  in 
which  men  generally,  and  Israel  in  particular,  were  found 


The  Humanity  of  Jesus 


115 


by  reason  of  sin  and  rebellion  against  God.  Though  in 
the  circumstances  of  those  in  such  a  relation  to  God,  He, 
truly  a  real  man,  was  never  in  the  distance  from  God 
which  this  involved,  except  when  made  sin  in  the  accom¬ 
plishment  of  atonement  upon  the  cross.  Whatever  were 
the  feelings,  experiences,  circumstances,  in  which  Christ 
participated  by  reason  of  His  humanity  and  presence 
among  men,  even  in  those  of  the  cross  itself,  including  the 
forsaking.  He  personally  as  man,  as  well  as  in  His  position 
as  the  Eternal  Son,  was  ever  perfectly  acceptable  to  God 
in  every  respect.  All  was  passed  through  and  endured 
“sin  apart”  as  far  as  He  personally  was  concerned.  He 
was  not  set  in  a  new  earthly  paradise,  like  that  of  Adam; 
was  this  because  He  was  in  the  position  and  relation  to 
'  God  of  guilty  like  other  men  who  were  outcasts  and  had 
no  claim  to  Edenic  blessedness?  Because  He  took  part 
in  flesh  and  blood  and  in  all  the  circumstances  of  sorrow, 
privation,  temptation,  through  which  men  pass  because 
of  their  position  of  alienation  to  God,  are  we  to  suppose 
!  He  also  was  in  that  pyosition?  Is  this  involved  in  the 
“all  things”?  He  was  here  in  absolutely  real  but  perfect 
humanity,  not  having  outwardly  the  portion  w^hich  be¬ 
comes  such  perfection,  but  sharing  in  all  that  which  consti¬ 
tuted  the  portion  of  man  as  fallen  from  his  original  per¬ 
fectness,  w^hile  as  to  Himself  ever  in  the  full  favor  of  God. 
He  took  up  humanity  and  entered  these  circumstances 
with,  the  suffering  of  death  specifically  in  view,  and  also 
His  ministry  of  mercy  and  grace  as  High  Priest  to  those 
on  behalf  of  whom  before  God  He  would  occupy  this  re¬ 
presentative  position.  Careful  distinction  must  therefore 
'  be  made  between  circumstances  and  relationship  in  the 
case  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 


116 


Modernism 


There  is,  however,  a  right  view  of  His  association  as  to 
relation  to  God  being  the  same  as  that  of  men  within 
certain  limitations.  This  is  conveyed  to  us  in  connection 
with  the  very  statements  we  are  considering  in  Hebrews 
2 — statements  which  we  take  rightly  to  teach  the  real  hu¬ 
manity  of  Jesus,  but  which  are  placed  also  in  relation  to 
those  spoken  of  as  “the  children,”  “the  seed  of  Abraham,” 
and  “His  brethren.”  It  is  not  because  they  have  a  different 
humanity  from  the  rest  of  mankind,  but,  as  indicated  by 
these  titles,  they  must  be  a  distinct  company  among  men. 
They  are  in  fact  the  “many  sons,”  “those  sanctified”  and 
called  “brethren,”  the  God-given  “children,”  in  short,  the 
family  of  faith,  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham  (Rom.  4, 
Gal.  3),  the  “many”  identified  with  the  new  headship  in 
Romans  5.  Now  as  a  man  on  earth,  the  Lord’s  associa¬ 
tion  as  to  relationship  to  God  was  with  those  of  this  dis¬ 
tinct  company,  so  that  He  occupied,  as  far  as  communi¬ 
ty  of  relationship  is  connected,  the  place  which  the  saints, 
or  godly  remnant  of  Israel,  occupied  before  God.  This 
was  holy,  being  distinct  from  all  who  were  unbelieving, 
ungodly.  This  naturally  falls  within  the  scope  of  being 
made  in  all  things  like  unto  His  brethren.  Further,  He 
was  not  in  this  position  because  He,  like  the  children,  had 
been  taken  out  of  a  previous  one  in  which  He  was  rela¬ 
tively  guilty  and  under  wrath.  He  was  in  it  solely  because 
of  taking  part  in  humanity,  their ’s  as  well  as  that  of  all. 
in  view  of  the  suffering  of  death  and  participation  in 
every  test  and  trial  incident  to  the  circumstances  in  which 
even  the  children  were  found,  as  a  result  of  acknowledged 
failure  and  sin,  whether  this  be  viewed  in  the  light  of 
man’s  fall  and  its  consequences,  or  specifically  the  com¬ 
plete  breakdown  of  Israel  which  gave  special  character 


The  Humanity  of  Jesus 


117 


to  the  experiences,  feelings,  and  sorrows  of  the  faithful 
with  whose  relationship  to  God  Christ  in  great  grace  asso¬ 
ciated  Himself.  This  finds  expression  for  us  in  the  Psalms, 
and  those  parts  of  the  Prophets  which  let  us  know  their 
spiritual  feelings  and  exercises.  Jeremiah  and  Lamenta¬ 
tions  are  notable  examples.  Into  all  this  Christ  most 
blessedly  and  perfectly  entered. 

H. 

Let  me  now  return  to  briefly  consider  the  proofs  that 
Christ  did  not  occupy  in  relation  to  God  that  position  or 
relationship  which  was  occupied  by  fallen  man  or  guilty 
Israel  as  under  the  curse  of  the  law. 

First,  as  to  death.  He  was  not  subject  to  it,  though  of 
course  capable  of  dying  as  having  participated  in  flesh 
and  blood.  This  is  evident,  for  He  was  sinless,  perfectly 
holy  from  the  moment  of  conception.  Sin  and  death  are 
inseparable,  sinlessness  and  life  likewise.  And  because 
there  is  no  such  state  among  men  death  reigns.  But  “in 
Him  was  life,”  and  the  Father  gave  “to  the  Son  to  have 
life  in  Himself”  (John  1:4;  5:  26).  He  then  as  man 
possessed  inherent  life,  and  hence  His  death  was  volun¬ 
tary,  a  real  laying  down  of  life  in  obedience  to  the  Fa¬ 
ther  (not  a  losing  of  it),  to  accomplish  God's  will,  for 
which  indeed  He  came,  thus  to  glorify  Flim  perfectly,  and 
bring  about  the  realization  of  all  the  wonderful  purposes 
of  His  love.  The  Lord  then  had  authority,  as  He  says, 
to  both  lay  down  His  life  and  take  it  again,  not  inde¬ 
pendently,  but  as  having  received  the  Father’s  command¬ 
ment  (John  10:  18).  He  was  never  in  that  relationship 
to  God,  or  condition,  which  involved  the  forfeiture  of  life. 
He  came,  indeed,  to  die,  and  so  accomplish  the  will  of 


118 


Modernism 


God;  but  this  was  on  behalf  of  others,  for  God’s  glory, 
and  their  eternal  blessing(l  Tim.  2:  5,  6;  2  Cor.  5:  14, 15; 
Heb.9:  26-28). 

Secondly,  He  was  “born  under  the  law.”  Man  under 
law  had  found  it  to  be  unto  death  and  curse  because  of 
his  sinfulness.  Was  Christ  under  it  in  this  way  because  of 
being  really  man?  Impossible,  for  He  was  holy,  and  had 
life,  and  perfectly  fulfilled  it  in  all  its  Godward  and  man- 
ward  requirements.  He  could  say:  “I  do  always  the 
things  pleasing  to”  the  Father.  There  was  never  any 
cloud  over  His  relationship  to  God.  “Father,  I  thank 
Thee  that  Thou  hast  heard  Me.  And  I  knew  that  Thou 
hearest  Me  always”  Neither  can  the  thought  be  allowed 
in  any  sense  that  He  acquired  His  position  of  accepta¬ 
bility  to  God  by  this  perfect  fulfilment  of  the  law.  Gal. 
3:  12  could  not  be  applied  to  Him,  and  never  for  one 
moment  was  He  personally  in  the  position  of  verse  10. 
What  He  became  for  us  is  quite  another  matter,  and  en¬ 
tirely  connected  with  the  cross  (verse  13). 

Thirdly,  though  His  was  real  humanity,  as  I  have  sought 
to  emphasize,  this  did  not  involve  His  participation  in 
man’s  state,  which  is  no  part  of  man’s  humanity,  but  the 
result  of  the  fall,  and  that  in  which  he  exists  for  a  longer 
or  shorter  period  according  to  God’s  appointment.  In  this 
state  of  existence  man  is  afflicted  with  many  infirmities, 
sicknesses,  slow  decadence — “Dying,  thou  shalt  surely 
die” — death.  Was  it  so  with  Christ?  He  grew  from 
childhood  to  manhood,  and  are  we  to  suppose  that  if  He 
had  not  been  cut  off  in  the  midst  of  His  days  by  a  violent 
death,  He  would  have  passed  the  way  of  all  flesh?  These 
are  vain  irreverent  speculations.  Scripture  does  not  speak 
of  Him  as  being  infirm  like  us,  but  tempted  like  us,  sin 


The  Humanity  of  Jesus 


119 


apart.  But  such  questions  are  aside  from  Scripture  en¬ 
tirely,  and  can  have  no  place  the  moment  we  bring  in  the 
Divine  purpose  which  was  involved  in  the  Word  becoming 
flesh.  He  came  to  die  in  the  way  and  at  the  time  ap¬ 
pointed,  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  accomplishment  of 
eternal  redemption.  There  could  be  no  other  issue,  for 
“the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God”  was 
involved  (Acts  2:  23).  In  the  light  of  this,  and  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  testimony  as  to  the  character  of  His  humanity,  there 
is  no  room  for  any  such  thoughts.  The  passage  in  Mat¬ 
thew  which  speaks  of  Him  taking  our  infirmities  and  bear¬ 
ing  our  sicknesses  has  clearly  no  application  to  His  person 
or  the  state  in  which  He  was  as  man.  It  is  explained  im¬ 
mediately  as  applying  to  His  ministry  in  healing  power. 
Doubtless  in  performing  this  He  in  the  fullest  way  en¬ 
tered  into  the  sorrow,  suffering,  and  moral  meaning  of  all, 
as  this  related  to  man  and  his  position  of  alienation  from 
God,  though  He  Himself  was  not  in  this  state  or  position 
in  any  sense. 

Fourthly,  “He  suffered  being  tempted.”  If  being  made 
in  all  things  like  unto  His  brethren  does  not  involve  be¬ 
ing  subject  to  death,  nor  therefore  a  being  in  their  state 
or  condition  as  the  result  of  sin,  though  He  took  part  in 
the  circumstances  connected  with  that  condition;  and 
does  not  mean  that  He,  though  an  Israelite,  was  person¬ 
ally  under  the  law  as  in  the  place  of  curse;  and  does  not 
mean  that  in  His  humanity  He  was  subject  to  the  frailty 
and  decreptitude  resultant  from  sin  which  characterizes 
men;  neither  does  it  mean  in  the  matter  of  temptation, 
that  there  was  in  Him  anything  to  which  sin  appealed,  or 
that  even  with  Him  there  was  the  capability  of  yielding  to 
it.  This  in  no  sense  weakens  or  nullifies  the  meaning  of 


120 


Modernism 


His  suffering  and  temptation.  The  reason  for  it  rather 
intensifies  both.  One  absolutely  perfect  in  humanity,  with 
every  feeling  and  faculty  unimpaired  by  the  presence  of 
sin,  and  holy  in  nature  and  practice  so  that  His  life  was 
perfect  obedience  to  God,  could  not  fail  to  suffer  with 
an  intensity  we  can  little  apprehend,  when  thus  living  in 
the  midst  of  circumstances,  and  sharing  in  all  the  sorrowful 
results,  arising  from  man’s  sinful  condition.  Temptation 
with  our  blessed  Lord  was  not  like  that  of  which  James 
speaks  (ch.  1:  14).  Though  there  was  the  outward  soli¬ 
citation  of  evil  in  His  case  as  with  men,  with  them  there  is 
that  within  which  responds  to  the  evil  and  takes  pleasure 
in  yielding,  for  which  however  since  it  is  within,  man  is 
always  held  responsible  for  the  isssue,  for  he  should  be 
master  of  himself.  As  to  the  Lord,  the  prince  of  this 
world  had  nothing  in  Him  (John  14:  30)  which  he  had 
in  every  other  man.  This  could  only  make  His  suffering 
under  temptation  the  more  poignant.  His  sympathy  with 
others  in  these  circumstances  (not  with  their  sin)  more 
deep.  His  capability  for  ministry  to  them  greater.  We 
may  not  allow  the  irreverent  thought  that  though  He  did 
not  yield  He  could  have  done  so;  this  could  only  mean 
that  He  had  those  evil  inclinations  within  which  spring 
from  a  corrupt  nature.  This  would  be  utterly  derogatory 
to  our  blessed  Lord,  and  nothing  short  of  blasphemy. 

HI. 

Having  shown  the  identity  of  the  humanity  of  Jesus 
with  that  of  men,  and  also  distinguished  it  in  its  moral 
relations  and  characteristics,  let  us  now  consider  the  tes¬ 
timony  to  it  being  real  and  true  humanity,  not  simply  in 
its  elements — body,  soul  and  spirit — but,  as  I  may  say,  in 
practical  manifestation. 


The  Humanity  of  Jesus 


121 


1 .  His  was  real  and  true  humanity  in  appearance.  In  this 
respect  there  was  not  a  strangeness  about  Him,  nothing 
extraordinary,  exclusive,  or  repellent;  on  the  contrary, 
perfect  accessibility,  for  He  was  easily  entreated,  patient, 
kind,  in  nothing  unseemly,  not  quickly  provoked.  In  Him 
we  see  the  display  of  every  moral  beauty  and  perfection, 
perfectly  blended  in  harmonious  manifestation,  the  blessed 
uniqueness  of  which  is  only  enhanced  when  we  consider 
the  entire  naturalness  of  His  appearance  to  those  who 
were  privileged  to  look  upon  Him.  To  this,  disciples, 
friends,  enemies,  and  others  bear  witness. 

John  declares  as  he  sees  Jesus,  “Behold  the  Lamb  of 
God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world!  This  is 
He  of  whom  I  said.  After  me  cometh  a  man  which  is  be¬ 
come  before  me,  for  He  was  before  me.”  Nicodemus 
says,  “No  man  can  do  these  signs  which  Thou  doest, 
except  God  be  with  him.”  The  Samaritan  woman  calls  to 
the  men  of  her  city,  “Come,  see  a  man,  which  told  me  all 
things  that  ever  I  did.”  To  begin  with,  she  had  answered 
Him  as  she  might  any  other  man.  The  poor  man  at  the 
pool  Bethesda  looked  upon  a  man  whom  he  thought  might 
be  the  one  that  would  help  him  first  into  the  water.  In 
the  questioning  and  discussion  of  the  crowds,  some  said, 
“He  is  a  good  man;”  and  when  He  taught,  the  Jews  are 
astonished  and  say,  “How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  hav¬ 
ing  never  learned?”  Upon  another  occasion  the  people 
say,  “Whence  hath  this  man  these  things?  and.  What  is 
the  wisdom  that  is  given  unto  this  man?  ...  Is  not  this 
the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary,  and  brother  of  James,  and 
Joses,  and  Judas,  and  Simon?  and  are  not  His  sisters  here 
with  us?  And  they  were  offended  in  Him.”  Again  in 
the  midst  of  controversy  over  Him,  we  hear  it  said,  “We 


122 


Modernism 


know  this  man  whence  He  is/’  while  others  question^ 
“^^^en  the  Christ  shall  come,  will  He  do  more  signs  than 
those  which  this  mcm  hath  done?”  The  officers  sent  to 
take  Him  declare,  “Never  man  spake  like  this  man;'*  and 
Nicodemus  asks,  “Doth  our  law  judge  any  man,  before  it 
hear  him?” 

The  Lord  Himself  says,  “Ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that 
hath  told  you  the  truth.” 

The  man  of  John  9  and  his  examiners  repeatedly  speak 
of  Jesus  as  a  man,  and  a  little  later  the  charge  against 
Him  is,  “That  Thou,  being  a  man,  makest  Thyself  God.” 
Again  He  is  spoken  of  as  “this  man”  in  relation  to  the 
death  and  raising  up  of  Lazarus.  Pilate  asks,  “What 
accusation  bring  ye  against  this  man?”  declares,  “I  find 
no  fault  in  this  man,  and  calls  upon  the  crowd  to  “Behold 
the  man.”  His  wife  had  sent  to  Pilate  saying,  “Have 
thou  nothing  to  do  with  that  righteous  man.”  The  thief 
upon  his  cross  testifies,  “T/zw  man  hath  done  nothing 
amiss;”  and  the  centurion  after  watching  the  scene  upon 
the  cross  says,  “This  was  a  righteous  man,  this  man  was 
the  Son  of  God.” 

Peter  speaks  of  Him  as  a  man  approved  of  God.  Paul 
witnesses  that  “through  this  man”  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
is  preached,  and  that  God  will  judge  the  world  “by  that 
man  whom  He  had  ordained.”  He  is  the  man  by  whom 
came  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  Mediator,  “the  man 
Christ  Jesus.” 

2.  His  was  real  and  true  humanity  as  evidenced  by  His 
experiences.  Though  having  no  part  in  the  state  or  con¬ 
dition  of  men  as  fallen.  He  never  screened  Himself  from 
any  of  the  circumstances  in  the  world  connected  with  this 
state.  He  hungered,  was  thirsty  and  weary,  slept,  needed 


The  Humanity  of  Jesus 


123 


and  accepted  ministry  from  others^  worked  with  His  hands^ 
was  questioned  by  His  opponents,  assailed  by  His  ene¬ 
mies,  and  mistreated  by  wicked  men.  He  suffered  priva¬ 
tion,  for  He  became  poor. 

3.  His  was  real  and  true  humanity,  for  He  had  the 
feelings  belonging  to  it,  sin  apart.  It  is  said  He  looked 
upon  them  with  anger,  being  grieved.  He  had  compas¬ 
sion,  could  weep  with  the  sorrowing,  be  troubled,  be  ex¬ 
ceeding  sorrowful,  be  moved  with  indignation,  manifest 
His  wonder,  be  greatly  amazed,  and  deeply  sigh  or  groan. 
And  then  He  loved.  He  sought  companionship,  desired 
comfort,  was  a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief, 
deeply  felt  the  failure  of  Israel,  and  the  lack  of  response 
to  His  ministry. 

4.  His  was  real  and  true  humanity,  as  we  may  see  from 
His  various  actions.  He  could  be,  like  others,  a  guest  at 
a  wedding,  and  go  to  a  feast  prepared  for  Him  by  Levi, 
or  in  Simon’s  house,  or  at  the  home  in  Bethany.  He  took 
up  the  children  in  His  arms.  It  is  plain  that  our  blessed 
Lord  went  in  and  out  among  men  as  a  man,  yet  won- 
drously  unique  and  perfect  in  all  His  actions,  words,  and 
manner  in  all  of  which  there  is  to  be  observed  perfect 
suitability  for  each  occasion.  If  we  compare  Him  with 
even  the  most  devoted  of  His  followers,  we  find  in  each 
of  them  some  quality  which  predominates,  and  there  is 
always  a  strand  of  failure  or  weakness  woven  into  their 
thoughts  or  actions. 

“But  in  Jesus,  even  as  man,  there  was  none  of  this  un¬ 
evenness.  There  was  nothing  salient  in  His  character, 
because  all  was  in  perfect  subjection  to  God  in  His  hu¬ 
manity,  and  had  its  place,  and  did  exactly  its  service,  and 
then  disappeared.  God  was  glorified  in  it;  and  all  was  in 


124 


Modernism 


harmony.  When  meekness  became  Him,  He  was  meek; 
when  indignation,  who  could  stand  before  His  overwhelm¬ 
ing  and  withering  rebuke?  Tender  to  the  chief  of  sinners 
in  the  time  of  grace;  unmoved  by  the  heartless  superiority 
of  a  cold  Pharisee  (curious  to  judge  who  He  was) ;  when 
the  time  of  judgment  is  come,  no  tears  of  those  who  wept 
for  Him  moved  Him  to  other  words  than,  *Weep  for  your¬ 
selves  and  your  children,^- — words  of  deep  compassion,  but 
of  deep  subjection  to  the  due  judgment  of  God.  On  the 
cross,  when  His  service  was  finished,  tender  to  His  mother, 
and  entrusting  her,  in  human  care,  to  one  who,  so  to 
speak,  had  been  His  friend,  and  leant  on  His  bosom;  no 
ear  to  recognize  her  word  or  claim  when  His  occupied 
Him  for  God;  putting  both  blessedly  in  their  place  when 
He  would  show  that  before  His  public  mission  He  was 
still  the  Son  of  the  Father,  and  though  such,  in  human 
blessedness  subject  to  the  mother  that  bare  Him,  and 
Joseph  His  father  as  under  the  law;  a  calmness  which 
disconcerted  His  adversaries;  and  in  the  moral  power 
which  dismayed  them  at  times,  a  meekness  which  drew 
out  the  hearts  of  all  not  steeled  by  wilful  opposition. 
What  keenness  of  edge  to  separate  between  the  evil  and 
the  good! 

*Tn  a  word  then.  His  humanity  was  perfect,  all  subject 
to  God,  all  in  immediate  answer  to  His  will,  and  the  ex 
pression  of  it,  and  so  necessarily  in  harmony.  The  hand 
that  struck  the  chord  found  all  in  tune.  Every  element, 
every  faculty  in  His  humanity,  responded  to  the  impulse 
which  the  divine  will  gave  to  it,  and  then  ceased  in  a  tran¬ 
quility  in  which  self  had  no  place.  Such  was  Christ  in 
human  nature.”* 

IV. 

There  is  one  title  belonging  to  the  Lord  which  bears 
especially  upon  the  truth  of  His  humanity — “the  Son  of 


*  Synopsis  of  the  Books  of  the  Bible,  Vol.  1,  pp.  152-4. 


The  Humanity  of  Jesus 


125 


Man.”  He  makes  constant  use  of  it  in  speaking  of  Him¬ 
self.  Very  important  truth  is  connected  with  it,  which, 
however,  I  can  hardly  speak  of  now.  Clearly  it  means 
the  continuation  of  humanity  in  Him,  though  not  con¬ 
nected  Vvdth  the  state  in  which  it  is  now  found  by  reason 
of  sin.  But  whatever  identity  there  is  in  kind,  there 
must  be  distinctness  and  difference,  since  though  a  man 
He  takes  His  place  among  them  as  the  Son  of  Man.  This 
is  found  in  His  perfection,  the  absence  of  all  that  marked 
man  as  fallen,  so  that  God  realizes  His  full  thought  as  to 
man  in  Him.  Consequently,  all  that  God  purposed  con¬ 
cerning  man  and  for  him  passes  to  Christ.  The  place 
and  inheritance  forfeited  by  man,  and  to  which  no  son 
of  man  could  lay  claim,  is  now  His  so  that  He  is  by  this 
preeminence  marked  as  the  Son  of  Man.  This  expands 
beyond  a  mere  earthly  horizon,  which  was  man’s  original 
limitation,  and  embraces  heavenly  and  eternal  purposes. 
He  exercises  universal  earthly  dominion — the  kingdom  of 
the  Son  of  Man — but  He  also  has  all  power  in  heaven. 
Into  His  hand  all  judgment  has  been  committed  because 
He  is  the  Son  of  Man  (John  5:  27),  and  His  voice  shall 
command  all  the  dead  (ver.  28).  “By  man  came  also  the 
resurrection  of  [those  that  are]  dead”  (1  Cor.  15:  21, 
New  Trans.).  But  these  things,  and  this  title,  link  with 
-  the  subject  of  His  death  and  resurrection  which  we  are 
yet  to  consider.  With  the  latter  in  particular  there  are 
also  two  titles — “Second  Man”  and  “Last  Adam” — which 
we  must  examine  later.  Yet  they,  too,  are  linked  with  the 
truth  of  His  humanity,  for  they  carry  it  on  into  a  new 
sphere  of  relation  and  condition,  the  first  intimating  an  ad¬ 
vance  upon,  or  additional  characteristic  of,  His  humanity 
as  compared  to  that  of  men,  and  the  second  defining  far 


126 


Modernism 


us  the  position  of  racial  headship  in  which  the  Man  Christ 
Jesus  is  now  established  as  in  resurrection. 

V. 

It  may  be  as  well  to  particularly  consider  two  of  the 
statements  made  in  Philippians  2  which  bear  upon  the 
theme  we  have  been  considering.  Though  indeed  the  en¬ 
tire  passage  (vers.  5-11)  may  be  considered  as  bearing 
upon  it,  I  refer  especially  to  the  expressions,  “Becoming 
in  the  likeness  of  men;  and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man.^^ 

First,  the  statement,  “Taking  the  form  of  a  bond- 
servant”  characterises  in  a  general  way  our  Lord’s  self¬ 
emptying.  This  participial  phrase  is  explanatory  of  “He 
emptied  Himself,”  and  then  it  is  more  specifically  defined 
by  the  next  phrase,  “Becoming  in  the  likeness  of  men.” 

The  change  of  form  calls  for  remark,  for  “form”  here 
denotes  that  expression  or  manifestation  which  is  essen¬ 
tially  characteristic  of  the  subject.  The  form  of  God  is 
that  which  gives  expression  to  or  manifestation  of  the 
essence  of  the  Person,  and  therefore  implies  the  reality  of 
Deity.  The  form  of  a  bond-servant  is  that  which  ex¬ 
presses  the  full  reality  and  essential  character  of  the  new 
place  taken  by  Christ.  It  is  said,  “taking,”  or  “having 
taken;”  implying  a  new  state  upon  which  He  entered,  in 
contrast  to  subsisting  in  the  form  of  God,  that  in  which 
He  always  had  been  until  He  took  this  new  form. 

Now  His  mode  of  manifestation  by  which  this  new 
form  is  given  effect  is  defined  as  being  “in  the  likeness  of 
men”  not  angels.  Since  it  says  likeness  the  thought  is 
that  of  resemblance,  of  similarity,  but  not  sameness.  It 
does  not  mean  either  absolute  identity  with  men  or  limita- 


The  Humanity  of  Jesus 


127 


tion  to  being  only  man.  It  implies  therefore  that  thou^ 
His  likeness  to  men  was  real  this  did  not  express  His 
whole  being.  The  statement  leaves  room  for  the  other 
side  of  His  being,  that  of  God,  in  that  though  as  to  its 
form  or  likeness  He  did  not  appear,  yet  both  the  moral 
perfections  and  power  of  His  essential  nature,  even  Deity, 
were  manifested  before  men  in  the  bond-servant’s  form, 
but  always  as  keeping  that  character,  and  as  serving  in  the 
humiliation  and  limitation  incident  to  it  as  far  as  these 
affected  Himself  personally,  while  knowing  no  restriction 
in  this  manifestation  on  behalf  of  others,  except  it  be  that 
of  entire  subjection  in  all  to  the  will  and  word  of  the 
Father. 

The  second  statement — “being  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man” — is  one  confined  to  what  is  merely  outward  and 
presented  to  human  observation.  The  word  “fashion” 
denotes  what  is  outward,  and  makes  its  appeal  to  the 
senses.  The  word  “found,”  in  agreement  with  this  thought, 
“expresses  the  quality  as  it  is  discovered  and  recognized, 
not  the  quality  of  a  person  or  thing  in  itself.” 

The  more  the  inspired  apostle’s  language  is  studied,  the 
more  its  divine  accuracy  is  discovered  in  both  what  it 
affirms  and  yet  most  carefully  guards  as  to  the  truth  of 
Christ’s  person  and  place. 

To  human  eyes  our  Lord  appeared  as  a  man,  this  was 
His  outward  fashion.  As  to  His  place  in  the  world.  His 
circumstances  and  experiences,  there  was  likeness  to  men, 
though  as  this  allows,  there  was  difference,  even  marked 
distinction,  as  Scripture  clearly  emphasizes.  His  human¬ 
ity  was  perfectly  real,  yet  blessedly  unique. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


The  deity  oj  Jesus: — Is  it  an  ethical  ideal  or  concrete 
fact?  Is  it  merely  divinity  mani jested  in  humanity ^ 
or  deity  and  humanity  in  perjectly  manifested 
union,  though  inscrutable  as  to  analysis 
by  the  finite  mind? 

I. 

1"  N  taking  up  this  theme  we  enter  upon  a  field  of  battle 
where  conflict  has  waged  long  and  fiercely.  I  have 
“  already  referred  to  the  Modernist  view,  but  it  will  be 
well  to  now  extend  our  review  of  it.  First,  I  would  ask 
my  reader  to  turn  back  to  the  previous  pages  to  which  I 
have  referred,  and  then  proceed  with  this  chapter. 

Modernists  boast  “in  their  emphasis  on  the  reality  of 
our  Lord’s  humanity,”  and  proclaim  that  “they  have 
reached  His  divinity  through  His  humanity.” 

Divinity  is  their  favorite  term,  not  Deity.  These  terms 
can  be  only  loosely  identified,  and  certainly  the  latter  can¬ 
not  be  strictly  applied  to  the  Modernist  view  of  our  Lord’s 
divinity.  Let  the  distinction  between  these  words  be  made 
clear,  and  the  difference  which  they  imply  when  applied 
to  the  Lord  Jesus  becomes  at  once  apparent. 

Divinity  is  “the  quality  or  character  of  being  divine: 
distinguished  from  deity:  a  being  who  partakes  of  the 
divine  nature  or  qualities.  The  character  of  having  divine 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


129 


origin,  emanating  from  the  divine  nature,  or  possessing 
divine  excellence/’ 

Now  Scripture  speaks  of  the  believer  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
as  partaking  of  the  divine  nature,  as  manifesting  the  char¬ 
acteristics,  and  qualities  of  God,  of  whom  he  is  spiritually 
bom,  as  possessing  the  life  of  God,  and  indwelt  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  In  this  way  we  might  speak  of  the  divinity 
of  the  man  who  is  a  child  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus.  But  we  could  not  speak  of  deity  as  pertaining  to 
him,  for  it  means  “a  god,  goddess,  or  divine  person.  The 
true  God.  The  nature,  character,  or  attributes  of  God, 
or  of  a  god.”  Divinity  refers  to  what  belongs  to  a  god, 
hence  may  be  found  in  one  to  whom  the  place  of  a  god 
does  not  belong.  Deity  refers  not  only  to  what  belongs 
!  to,  but  to  the  fact  of  what  the  person  is,  he  is  a  god. 
To  speak  then  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus  does  not  necessarily 
involve  the  deity  of  Jesus,  and  in  fact  the  Modernist 
means  that  we  should  so  understand  his  use  of  this  term. 
Jesus  is  not  God  as  to  the  truth  of  His  person,  but  simply 
a  man  in  whom  what  is  divine  was  developed  and  dis¬ 
played. 

The  Modernist  says  to  us,  “Go  back  to  the  Master 
Himself,  as  living  and  teaching  and  working  in  Judeaj 
I  back  to  Jesus,  and  see  Him  re-achieving  the  Divinity  He 
had  before  His  real  incarnation.”  This  simply  means, 
no  matter  what  thought  may  be  in  the  mind  as  to  the 
pre-existence  of  Jesus,  that  as  to  incarnation  He  became 
and  was  nothing  more  than  man  in  whom  there  was  grad¬ 
ually  developed  and  revealed  what  is  referred  to  as  some 
previously  possessed  Divinity.  This  idea  is  further  ex¬ 
pressed  in  this  way: 


130 


Modernism 


“The  real  incarnation  of  the  Logos  \Word']  in  the  infant 
Jesus  who  ‘increased  in  wisdom  and  stature  and  in  favor 
with  God  and  man’  .  .  .  how  ‘He  learned  obedience  by  the 
things  which  He  suffered’  (Heb.  5:8).  How  He  was  in  all 
points  ‘tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin’  (Heb.  4: 
15).  How  He  suffered  agony  in  Gethsemane;  how  He 
made  the  supreme  sacrifice  .  .  .  how  He  re-achieved  divinity 
(Phil.  2:9)  through  all  His  service  of  love  for  us  love¬ 
less  men;  how  He  rose  again*  and  opened  the  gate  of 
everlasting  life  to  us  .  .  .  how  He  completed  the  return 
process  of  excarnation  at  the  ascension.f  .  .  .  The  Divinity 
of  Jesus  shines  forth  from  every  page  of  the  Gospels. 
That  of  His  Deity  does  not  appear  in  them  .  .  .  All  [t  e., 
Modernists]  would  confess  that  in  Jesus  is  beheld  Deltas 
sub  specie  humanitatis,  the  Deity  of  Jesus  being  seen  in 
His  perfect  humanity.” 

Consistency  would  require  Divinity  to  be  used,  for  these 
views  really  forbid  the  application  of  Deity  to  Him.  For 
those  who  hold  them  the  incarnation  consists  merely  in 
the  idea  that  God  chose  to  dwell  in  the  man  Jesus,  illum¬ 
inating  Him  and  fitting  Him  for  the  work  of  prophet  and 
revealer  of  what  God  is  like,  so  “that  we  are  justified  in 
thinking  of  God  as  like  Christ;  that  the  character  and 
teaching  of  Christ  contain  the  fullest  disclosure  both  of  the 
character  of  God  Himself  and  of  His  will  for  man — that 
is,  as  far  as  the  momentous  truth  can  be  summed  up  in 
a  few  words,  the  true  meaning  for  us  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ’s  Divinity.” 

Therefore  for  Modernists  the  incarnation  is  not  the 
assumption  of  real  humanity  by  a  Being,  heavenly,  divine. 


*  As  to  what  this  means  to  the  Modernist  we  will  see 
later. 

t  This  means  of  course  that  He  is  no  longer  man. 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


131 


eternal,  and  to  whom  Deity,  that  is.  Godhead,  intrinsically 
pertains,  and  who,  remaining  all  that  He  essentially  weis 
(form  excepted),  came  “and  dwelt  among  us.”  It  is  sim¬ 
ply  that  a  child  was  born  to  Joseph  and  Mary,  for  “the 
Divinity  of  Christ  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  Virgin 
Birth  or  any  other  miracle,”  in  whom  it  pleased  God  to 
dwell,  and  work  out  a  revelation  of  Himself  in  conjunction 
with  the  process  of  his  natural  development  from  infancy 
to  manhood,  so  “that  in  the  life  and  character,  the  teach¬ 
ing  and  the  personality  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  world  has  re¬ 
ceived  the  highest  revelation  of  God.”  Mark,  the  person¬ 
ality  is  not  simply  fully  but  only  human,  the  divine  hsis 
been  woven  into  it. 

“The  Divinity  of  Christ  does  not  imply  omniscience.” 
“Jesus  never  claimed  the  owm-attributes.  Owwi-potence  is 
not  an  ethical  attribute.  Jesus  was  ethical,  and  did  not 
need  it  to  be  a  revealer  of  God’s  character.”  We  are  not 
then  to  recognize  in  Jesus  a  Divine  Person  who  is  essen¬ 
tially  God  in  nature,  character,  attributes,  being,  who  em¬ 
bodied  Himself  in  full,  real,  and  true  humanity;  but  we  are 
to  recognize  in  Him  simply  “a  man  in  the  fullest  sense, 
in  whom  there  came  to  be  consummated  in  His  public 
ministry  and  self-sacrifice  the  highest  possible  ethical 
I  embodiment  of  God.  What  this  really  implies  may  be 
seen  from  the  following: 

“His  disciples  soon  found  themselves  compelled  to  des- 
’  cribe  Him  by  the  highest  term  they  knew,  and  that  some¬ 
thing  more  than  a  teacher.  Emphasis  is  put  upon  the 
i  attractiveness  of  His  personality;  the  harmonious  charm  of 
His  character;  the  absence  of  any  sense  of  sin  or  need 
of  forgiveness — ‘the  presence  of  a  personality  which  im¬ 
presses  and  grips  them.'  The  personal  fascination  which 
!  He  exercised  on  His  contemporaries  has  renewed  itself 


132 


Modernism 


from  age  to  age.  Modernists  have  been  enthralled  by  it 
and  therefore  think  the  best  way  to  present  Him  to  this 
age,  is  that  of  showing  the  perfect  human  person  that  lies 
back  of  the  Gospel  narratives.”  They  proclaim  “the  over¬ 
whelming  personality  of  this  man  of  Galilee  .  .  .  *He 
attracted  tremendously  or  repelled  tremendously.’  Jesus 
on  earth  was  certainly  one  who  counted  and  made  things 
diiferent  wherever  He  went.  All  of  His  wonderful  works 
of  healing  and  His  insight  and  intuitions  are  easily  be¬ 
lievable  from  our  present  knowledge  of  psychotherapy 
and  the  new  pschology.  They  show  the  power  of  a  per¬ 
fect  humanity.” 

“He  spoke  in  w’onderful  parables.  He  wrought  mighty 
deeds.  He  did  not  perform  astounding  wonders.  He  dis¬ 
approved  of  such  signs  (John  4:48).  But  miracles  of 
personality;  miracles  for  the  good  of  the  people  about 
Him,  surely  He  performed  many  more  of  these  than  those 
recorded  in  the  Gospels.” 

“The  resurrection  was  the  culmination  of  His  ethical 
miracles,  wrought  by  the  mighty  power  of  a  perfect  hu¬ 
man  personality,  as  that  ripened  again  into  ‘the  form  of 
God’  which  he  voluntarily  laid  aside  when  He  was  ‘made 
in  likeness  of  man’  (Phil.  2 :  6,  7) .  The  power  of  this 
personality  emptied  the  tomb  and  made  intercourse  with 
His  disciples  again  possible.  His  risen  body  was  very 
diiferent  from  the  body  laid  in  the  tomb.  His  full  ex¬ 
carnation  had  already  begun.  It  continued  through  the 
forty  days,  till  He  returned  to  the  Father.  Most  of  His 
recorded  miracles  are  ethical  ones.  They  were  wrought 
by  His  wondrous,  sinless  personality.  We  may  well  doubt 
the  record  of  those  seeming  to  be  divorced  from  this — 
mere  wonders  of  power.  Power  does  not  prove  goodness. 
If  we  were  left  with  those  of  the  cursing  of  the  fig  tree, 
the  demoniacs  and  swine,  and  the  finding  a  piece  of  money 
in  the  mouth  of  a  fish,  we  might  have  a  paltry  conception 
of  His  miracles.  Jesus  discouraged  men  seeking  such 
signs  and  wonders.  He  said  false  Christs  would  rise  and 
perform  them.  He  was  no  such  miracle  worker.  His  life 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


133 


and  teaching  were  the  standing  miracle.  Through  His  own 
wondrous  personality  He  wrought  works  of  unusual  power 
for  the  help  of  men.  We  do  not  believe  He  wrought  the 
others.  Why  should  belief  in  them  be  required  in  this 
day  when  the  old  proof  from  miracles  has  been  given  up? 
Who  to-day  crave  such  miracles?  Who  to-day,  with  the 
sense  of  law,  order,  unity  and  purpose  in  nature,  could  be¬ 
lieve  them?” 

It  is  not  any  wonder  that  with  such  views 

“most  Modernists  do  not  quote  St.  John’s  Gospel,  as  the 
testimony  of  an  eye  witness,  as  its  date  and  authorship 
are  still  an  open  question.  The  evidence  seems  to  point 
toward  considering  it  as  the  work  of  another  disciple  in 
the  early  part  of  the  second  century.”* 

No  matter  though  familiar  terms  are  used  to  give  an 
orthodox  aspect  to  these  views,  they  are  the  denial  of  what 
is  most  vital  to  our  holy  faith. 

1.  They  deny  that  Jesus,  though  really  man,  was  not 
simply  divine  in  life,  character,  and  nature,  but  also  intrin¬ 
sically  and  essentially  God — Deity.  The  divinity  of  Jesus 
not  only  comprises  the  ethical  or  moral  characteristics  of 
God,  but  His  being  personally  God  as  well  as  personally 
man. 

2.  They  deny  to  Jesus  the  possession  and  exercise  of 
the  omni-attributes. 

3.  They  deny  the  pre-existent  distinctness  of  His  Person, 
and  make  incarnation  as  it  applies  to  Jesus  (and  this 
must  therefore  be  His  pre-incamate  form  of  God)  the 
mere  infusion  of  a  divine  emanation  from  God  which 
expanded  and  grew  with  His  own  human  expansion  and 


♦Appendix  III.  The  genuineness  of  John’s  Gospel. 


134 


Modernism 


growth,  so  that  He  became  what  God  is  like.  It  is  thus 
stated: 

^‘God  reveals  himself  through  others;  not  only  through 
the  experience  of  the  race  and  through  our  social  experi¬ 
ence,  but  through  the  great  light  that  shines  through  great 
and  holy  men.  To  see  the  peace  and  joy,  the  calm  and  the 
energy  in  some  good  man,  is  to  have  a  vision  of  what  God 
is  like.  That  was  the  impression  Jesus  made  upon  his 
disciples  in  Judea,  and  upon  his  disciples  in  all  countries 
and  ages.  To  see  Jesus  is  to  see  what  God  is  like.  He 
was  like  God:  God  incarnate  in  human  form,  and  under 
all  human  limitations.’^ 

But  then  any  of  those  great  and  holy  men  could  be 
referred  to  as  God  incarnate  in  human  form! 

4.  They  deny  His  present  existence  as  man.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  them  excarnation  began  in  resurrection,  and  was 
completed  at  the  ascension! 

It  may  be  granted  that  the  truth  of  the  full,  real,  hu¬ 
manity  of  Jesus,  as  we  find  it  set  before  us  in  the  four 
Gospels,  is  that  which  makes  a  mighty  heart-gripping  ap¬ 
peal,  that  it  has  had  a  tremendous  effect  upon  the  world, 
that  in  it  there  is  great  moral  power,  that  it  must  draw  to 
Him  any  who  feel  it  laying  hold  upon  them  as  they  con¬ 
sider  the  records  given  to  us.  This  must,  I  believe,  in 
some  measure  bring  about  a  change,  even  though  it  does 
not  go  beyond  the  outward  activities  of  life.  But  can 
the  heart  and  conscience  fail  of  conviction  as  to  the  im¬ 
passable  gulf  between  Him  and  oneself,  so  that  the  very 
moral  perfections  which  may  be  delighted  in  and  won¬ 
dered  at  become  like  a  great  search-light  revealing  the 
incurable  sinfulness  that  is  within  the  human  breast? 
This  can  only  result  after  all  in  leaving  an  honest  soul  in 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


135 


an  anguish  unrelieved  as  He  is  contemplated  in  His  moral 
perfectness  and  sinlessness,  until  it  is  found  that  He  has 
accomplished  too  the  work  which  not  only  for  God,  but 
for  all  who  will  believe,  removes  this  abhorrent  sinfulness, 
so  that  rest  of  conscience  may  be  enjoyed  as  to  the  judg¬ 
ment  merited  at  the  hand  of  God,  and  victory  be  realized 
in  practical  life  over  indwelling  and  outward  forces  of 
evil.  And  then  how  immense  the  gain  to  find  that  He 
who  has  thus  won  me  by  His  moral  perfections  and  His 
atoning  work  wrought  in  wondrous  love  is  really  God  in 
the  truth  of  His  person.  Greatest  of  all  great  mysteries 
indeed,  and  yet  how  blessedly  it  explains  much  that  could 
not  be  understood  without  it.  It  settles  at  once  how  His 
agony  on  the  Cross  accomplished  eternal  redemption,  pro¬ 
viding  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  meeting  fully  the  desires 
of  infinite  love  as  well  as  all  the  demands  of  the  Divine 
Government  in  its  holiness  and  righteousness.  He  came 
not  only  to  show  us  a  way  of  living^  but  to  accomplish 
through  death  the  opening  of  the  way  into  life.  The  truth 
of  His  Person,  His  life,  and  His  death  alone  effect  the 
perfect  and  eternal  reconciliation  in  harmonious  display 
of  all  that  is  in  holy  government,  infinite  love,  and  moral 
perfection,  and  that  in  relation  to  the  whole  question  of 
sin  and  man  in  relation  to  it. 

Let  us  turn  to  consider  our  theme — the  Deity  of  Jesus 
— in  the  light  of  the  Book  we  have  taken  as  our  standard 
of  knowledge  and  judgment.  Its  testimony  to  His  blessed 
humanity  is  full  and  clear;  it  is  not  less  so  as  to  the  truth 
of  His  Deity. 

II. 

In  considering  the  testimony  of  the  Epistles  in  relation 


136 


Modernism 


to  this  theme  it  may  be  well  to  remark  that  we  are  not 
to  consider  them  as  primarily  originating  Christian  teach¬ 
ing,  but  rather  as  clearly  showing  what  was  orally  taught 
to  the  Church.  We  are  assured  that  all,  whether  oral  or 
written,  is  in  the  words  given  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  not 
taught  by  human  wisdom  (1  Cor.  2:  10-16,  R.V.)*  These 
writings  presuppose  instructionf  in  the  great  foundation 
truths  by  the  oral  ministry  of  the  apostles  and  prophets 
of  the  New  Testament.  They  are  therefore  essentially 
a  record  as  well  as  a  revelation.  The  Acts  and  the  Gospels 
are  also  clearly  historical  in  this  respect. 

In  particular  our  present  concern  is  with  their  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  Deity  of  Jesus,  first  doubtless  presented  in 
the  oral  ministry  of  the  Lord’s  servants,  and  then  pre¬ 
served  and  communicated  in  these  scriptures  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  may  be  of  interest  to  consider  the  testimony  of 
the  epistles  as  arranged  in  their  generally  accepted  chrono¬ 
logical  order.  James  may  be  first  in  this  order,  but  there 


*  The  concluding  phrase  of  ver.  13  is  better  rendered : 
^^Communicating  spiritual  things  by  spiritual  means”  (J. 
N.  D.,  New  Trans.).  The  Amer.  Standard  Version  gives 
it  :  “Combining  spiritual  things  with  spiritual  words.” 
Rotherham,  “By  spiritual  words  spiritual  things  explain¬ 
ing;”  he  marks  the  strong  emphasis  as  being  upon  spirit¬ 
ual  words.  See  too  Rom.  16 ;  25,  26  and  Eph.  3 :  1-5,  both 
R.  V.  Both  passages  refer  to  the  New  Testament  Scrip¬ 
tures  and  revelation.  Concerning  this  Paul  affirms  that  it 
was  given  to  him,  “to  fulfil  (better,  “complete,”  or  “fill  up”) 
the  Word  of  God”  (Col.  1:  25,  26,  R.  V.). 

t As  to  this  instruction  and  oral  ministry  see  1  Thess.  1 : 
5,9;  2:2,13;  3:4;  2  Thess.  2:5;  3:6,10;  2  Cor.  15:1-8; 
Gal.3:l-5;  Acts  20:17-38;  Luke  1:1-4;  2Tim.l:13;  3: 
13;  Tit.l:3,9;  Heb.2:3,4;  2  Pet.l:12-15;  3:1,2;  Jude  17. 


The  Deity  of  Jesus  137 

is  no  question  as  to  the  early  date  of  1st  and  2nd 
Thessalonians. 


The  Writings  of  Paul  Date  The  Writings  of  others 


45-50 

James 

1  Thessalonians 

52 

2 

53 

' 

1  Corinthians 

57 

2 

57 

Galatians 

58  (?) 

Romans 

58 

Ephesians 

)  60 

f  Matthew 

Colossians-Philemon 

V  to 

Acts  j  Mark 

Philippians 

)  63 

(  Luke 

Tiiese  may  have  been 
written  a  little  later. 

64 

1  Peter 

1  Timothy* 

67  (?) 

Titus* 

67  (?) 

2  Peter  (perhaps  a 
little  earlier  or  in  68). 

2  Timothy 

68 

Jude 

Hebrews 

68  (about) 

( Gospel 

90-98 

John  j  Epistles 

i  Revelation 

First,  let  me  suggest  what  is  general.  Throughout  all 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  except  1st  and  2nd  John, 
the  title  Lord  is  applied  to  Jesus.  It  is  so  used  over  400 
times,  either  alone  or  in  combination  with  Jesus  and 
Christ.  The  force  of  this  becomes  manifest  when  we 
note  the  use  of  Old  Testament  scriptures  in  which  it 
{kurios)  represents  Jehovah.  This  too  is  usual  in  the 
Septuagint.  In  the  New  Testament  it  is  used  by  Christ 
of  Himself.f  But  the  point  I  press  is  its  use  for  Jehovah 


*  Might  have  been  written  after  leaving  Ephesus  (Act& 
20:  1),  which  would  be  about  60  A.  D.  and  before  his  first 
imprisonment. 

t  Matt.  7:  21,  22;  12:8;  21:3;  24:42;  25:37,44;  par¬ 
allel  passages  may  be  found  in  Mark  and  Luke;  John  IS: 
13, 14.  There  are  several  less  direct  references,  as  Matt. 
22:  42-45. 


138 


Modernism 


along  with  its  application  to  Jesus,  made  as  this  is  in  con¬ 
junction  with  those  titles  which  more  particularly  relate 
to  His  manhod.  To  this  may  be  objected  that  kurios  is 
used  of  others  than  Christ.  But  this  in  no  wise  weakens 
the  comparison  above  made,  for  the  limitations  in  its 
application  to  others  is  at  once  clear  from  the  references. 
Whereas  the  sense  in  which  kurios  is  applied  to  the  Lord 
is  quite  evident  from  such  passages  as: — 

‘‘Jesus,  He  is  Lord  of  alF’  (Acts  9:  17). 

“The  Lord,  even  Jesus”  (Acts  10:  36). 

“He  is  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  the  living”  (Rom. 
14:  19). 

“One  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  are  all  things  and 
we  by  Him”  (1  Cor.  8:6). 

“But  of  the  Son,  He  saith  .  .  .  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  be¬ 
ginning,”  etc.  (Heb.  1:  2,  8, 10-12). 

They  “crucified  the  Lord  of  glory,”  not  that  the  One 
they  crucified  became  this,  but  was  this  at  that  time 
(1  Cor.  2:  8  with  2  Cor.  8:  9). 

There  is  another  word  similar  in  meaning  to  kurias, — 
despotes"^ — ^which  is  also  used  of  Godf  and  of  Christ.^ 

This  consistent  interchange  of  titles  shows  that  from 
the  beginning  of  the  apostolic  ministry  Jesus  was  given 
the  place  of  equality  with  God,  not  only  as  to  character, 

*  Both  of  these  words  denote  owner,  lord,  master;  and 
express  the  position  and  authority  arising  from  and  be¬ 
longing  to  ownership.  The  latter,  however,  includes  more 
absolute  and  unlimited  authority. 

t  Luke  2 :  29 ;  Acts  4 :  24 ;  Rev.  6:10;  rendered  “Lord” 
in  A.  V. 

%2  Tim.  2:21,  “Master;”  2  Pet.  2:1,  “Lord;”  Jude  4, 
“our  only  Master  and  Lord  (kurios),  Jesus  Christ,”  R.  V. 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


139 


but  as  to  being  and  position.  He  is  in  fact  Jehovah  and 
Elohim.  This  then  is  the  affirmation,  not  only  of  pre¬ 
existence,  but  also  of  His  being  personally  God  before 
and  in  His  incarnation.  Let  us  not  forget  that  these 
writings  are  to  be  considered  as  perfectly  inspired  and 
absolutely  inerrant. 

Besides  what  may  be  counted  as  formal  presentations 
of  the  theme  before  us,  and  which  will  receive  special  con¬ 
sideration  in  the  next  section  of  this  chapter,  there  are 
certain  general  statements  scattered  through  the  New 
Testament  which,  though  casual  in  character,  become  just 
because  of  this,  any  special  design  being  absent,  strong 
evidence  of  the  truth  held  and  taught  “from  the  begin¬ 
ning,’^  to  which  John  so  often  turns  us  back.  These  aie 
presented  in  the  chronological  order  of  the  writings. 

1.  Peter  proclaims  Jesus  as  Lord,  quoting  David,  not  as 
made  this,  consequent  on  resurrection,  but  proved  to  be 
this  by  resurrection  (Acts  2). 

2.  The  references  to  Jesus  as  God’s  Servant  (Acts  3: 
13,  26;  4:  27,  30)  link  Him  with  the  great  Servant-proph¬ 
ecies  of  Isaiah  (chaps.  40-53).  The  word  here  used  is  pais, 
which  denotes  both  a  child  of  any  age  up  to  full-grown 
youth,  and  also  a  servant,  an  attendant,  or  minister,  as 
of  a  king,  or  of  God.  It  is  the  word  used  in  the  Septua- 
gint  for  servant  in  the  prophecies  above  mentioned,  and 
it  was  .the  Old  Testament  in  this  Greek  form  which  was 
used  in  those  early  days.  This  in  itself  opens  up  a  large 
field  for  study,  for  along  with  the  plain  intimations  of  the 
humanity  and  humiliation  of  the  Servant,  there  is  also  that 
which  gives  Him  equality  of  place  and  title  to  Jehovah. 

3.  Peter  before  Cornelius,  speaks  of  Jesus  as  “Lord  of 
all.” 


140 


Modernism 


4.  They  “killed  the  Lord  Jesus”  (1  Thess.  2:  15). 

5.  “Jesus  Christ,  and  Him  crucified  .  .  .  the  Lord  of 
glory”  (1  Cor.  2:  2-8). 

6.  “God  raised  up  the  Lord”  (1  Cor.  6:  14) — not  raised 
up  Jesus  to  be  made  Lord,  but  He  who  was  the  Lord  was 
raised  up. 

7.  “One  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all 
things”  (1  Cor.  8:  6,  R.  V.). 

8.  “Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  also  some  of  them 
tempted”  (1  Cor.  10:  9) — it  was  Jehovah  Elohim  whom 
Israel  tempted. 

9.  “For  ye  know  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  though  He  was  rich  (when,  where,  how?  Certainly 
not  on  earth  as  man),  yet  for  your  sakes  He  became  poor, 
that  ye  through  His  (emphatic:  ^of  that  one,’  ‘such  an 
one  as  He’)  poverty  might  be  rich”  (2  Cor.  8:9). 

10.  “God  sent  forth  His  Son,  born  of  a  woman”  (Gal. 
4:  4);  plainly,  not  sent  forth  to  preach  and  teach,  but 
as  coming  into  the  world — One  who  pre-existed  as  God’s 
Son.  With  this  His  own  words  agree.  He  came  down 
from  heaven,  and  was  sent  into  the  world  by  the  Father 
(John  3:  13;  10:  36).  And  John  also  bears  this  witness 
(1  John  4:  9, 10, 14).  Of  similar  force  is  the  expression  in 
Rom.  8 :  3 — a  pre-existent  and  distinct  person  so  came. 

11.  “Israelites  ...  of  whom  is  Christ  as  concerning  the 
flesh,,  who  is*  over  all,  God  blessed  forever”  (Rom.  9:  5, 
R.  V.). 

*  An  instance  of  the  article  and  present  participle 
{ho  on),  which  denotes  permanent  character.  It  is  what 
characterises  the  person,  rather  than  a  relation  to  time. 
He  who  came  of  Israel  was  the  One  ever  over  all.  It 
rather  implies  essential  being,  as  in  Rev.  1 :  4,  “who  is.” 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


141 


12.  “Christ  Jesus  came  inio  the  world  to  save  sinners” 
came  is  from  erchomai.  This  word  is  not  used  in  connection 
with  the  idea  of  birth.  Born  into  the  world  could  not  be 
used  as  the  equivalent  of  “came  into  the  world.”  It  is 
a  word  of  universal  application  to  the  coming  or  going 
of  persons  or  things  from  one  place  or  person  to  another 
place  or  person;*  to  come  to  or  into  any  state  or  cir¬ 
cumstances;  to  come  forth  before  the  public  or  the  world; 
to  appear  or  make  one’s  appearance.  Here  it  is  with  the 
preposition  eis  {to  or  into,  indicating  the  point  reached  or 
entered)  used  with  the  accusative  of  place,  to  come  to 
or  into,  as  for  example  Matt.  2:  11;  Luke  14:  1;  Mark 
5:  1;  8:  10;  John  11:  38;  Acts  8:  40;  Gal.  2:  11.  In  the 
light  of  these  considerations  this  passage  distinctly  im¬ 
plies  as  to  Christ  pre-existence,  distinctness  of  person,  and 
;  purpose  established  previous  to  the  actual  coming.  It  is 
not  that  He  was  born  into  the  world  like  other  men,  and 
with  His  maturity  a  purpose  to  save  developed  with  Him, 
but  living  outside  of  the  world  He  came  into  the  world  to 
accomplish  a  previously  established  purpose  ( 1  Pet.  1 : 
19,20).  This  form  of  statement  agrees  with  those  pas¬ 
sages  before  referred  to. 

*  e.  g.,  in  relation  to  Christ:  John  3:  31  (twice) ;  8:  42 
(twice:  “proceeded  forth,”  *‘came  I  of  Myself;”)  in  the 
first  instance  it  is  the  word  erchomai  with  the  preposi¬ 
tion  ex  prefixed  which  adds  the  idea  of  origin,  the  point 
whence  notion  or  action  proceeds.  Note  its  use  again  in 
this  form  and  in  relation  to  Christ:  John  13:3;  16:27, 
28,  30;  17:  8) ;  12:  46;  16:  28  (“am  come”) ;  18:  37;  1  John 
4:  2,3;  2  John  7.  In  relation  to  the  Holy  Spirit  coming 
into  the  world:  John  16:  7,18,13.  In  relation  to  Christ's 
second  coming:  John  14:3;  1  Cor.  4:5;  11:26;  Jude  14; 
Rev.  1:7;  22:7,12,17,20. 


142 


Modernism 


Thus  Jesus  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels  for 
the  suffering  of  death  (Heb.  2:9).  He  took  not  hold  of 
angels,  but  of  Abraham’s  seed.  He  took  part  in  flesh  and 
blood.  That  is,  He,  pre-existent  and  distinct  in  being, 
passed  by  angels,  and  became  incarnate. 

One  other  divine  name  may  be  mentioned — Theos,  God. 
In  the  New  Testament  this  corresponds  quite  generally 
with  Elohim,  and  sometimes  with  Jehovah  in  references 
to  the  Old  Testament,  so  that  it  represents  the  Almighty, 
Eternal,  self-existent  Being  therein  revealed.  This  is  also 
applied  to  Christ,  Rom.  9:  25;  Matt.  1:  23;  2  Pet.  1:1; 
Titus  2:  13,R.V.;  John  1:  1;  20:  28;  1  John  5:  20. 

Finally  there  are  the  noteworthy  and  special  passages 
in  Philippians,  Colossians,  Hebrews,  and  John’s  writings. 

III. 

Let  consideration  be  first  given  to  Philippians  2:  5-11, 
for  this  passage  furnishes  us  with  an  important  and  com¬ 
prehensive  series  of  statements  in  relation  to  our  Lord, 
each  of  which  calls  for  special  study  which  will  in  turn 
lead  to  other  important  scriptures.  “Have  this  mind  in  you 
which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus: 

A . 1.  Who,  subsisting  in  the  form  of  God, 

B . 2.  Esteemed  it  not  rapine  to  be  on  an  equality 

C _ 3.  But  emptied  Himself,  [with  God, 

D . .  4.  Taking  the  form  of  a  bond-servant, 

5.  Becoming  in  the  likeness  of  men; 

D . .  6.  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man, 

C . 7.  He  humbled  Himself,  [death  of  the  cross. 


B . 8.  Becoming  obedient  even  unto  death,  yea,  the 

A . 9.  Wherefore  also  God  highly  exalted  Him,  and 


granted  to  Him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name,  that  at 
the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  heavenly  and 
earthly  and  infernal  beings,  and  every  tongue  confess  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.”* 


*  R.  V.,  with  changes  selected  from  other  translations. 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


143 


By  the  structure  suggested  above  I  wish  to  call  atten¬ 
tion  to  a  correspondence  between  these  statements  which 
may  be  traced  by  way  of  both  similarity  and  contrast. 
The  following  topical  arrangement  will  help  in  apprehend¬ 
ing  this  correspondence,  if  the  parts  similarly  lettered  are 
compared. 


A . 1.  His  pre-existence  as  to  form  and  position. 

B . 2.  His  attitude  in  relation  to  this. 


C. . .  .3.  His  act. 

D..4.  His  assumed  form  and  position. 

5.  His  charactery  in  that  form. 

D.  .6.  His  external  mien,  and  circumstances. 
C . 7.  His  act. 


B . 8.  His  attitude  as  being  in  this  assumed  form. 

A . 9.  His  post-existence  as  returned  to  the  Father. 


The  first  three  statements  bear  directly  on  our  present 
theme.  The  second  three  relate  to  the  humanity  of  Jesus, 
already  considered.  Seven  and  eight  properly  belong  to 
our  next  chapter,  and  nine  to  the  one  following.  Let  us 
consider  them  in  their  order,  but  first  note  their  relation. 

In  parts  BB  and  CC  we  have  what  expresses  the  mind 
which  was  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  the  resultant  actions — He 
emptied  and  humbled  Himself. 

Parts  AA  define  mode  in  relation  to  Christ ;  first,  as  prior 
to  incarnation,  “equality  with  God”  bearing  relation  to 
“the  form;”  secondly,  as  having  ascended  after  resurrec¬ 
tion,  and  to  this  “the  death  of  the  cross”  bears  direct  re¬ 
lation.  D4  finds  its  complement  in  D6,  the  first  stating 
the  place  taken,  and  the  second  intimating  the  external 
features  connected  with  the  occupation  of  this  place.  The 
central  statement  of  the  series  expresses  the  fact  of  real 
and  full  humanity. 

1.  “Subsisting  in  the  form  of  God.”  Two  words 


144 


Modernism 


calls  for  special  attention.  First,  subsisting,  Gr.,  huparcho,^ 
which  ‘‘implies  essential  or  original  condition.”  Used  as  a 
logical  copula,  it  connects  the  subject  and  predicate,  where 
it  (in  this  case,  “in  the  form  of  God”)  specifies  who  or 
what  a  person  or  thing  is  in  respect  to  nature,  origin, 
office,  condition,  circumstances,  state,  place,  etc.  But  these 
ideas  all  lie  in  the  predicate,  and  not  in  the  copula.  Here 
it  is  used  with  the  preposition  en,  with  the  dative  case 
("in  the  form,”  etc.)  as  the  predicate,  and  implies  a  being 
or  living  in  the  prescribed  state  or  condition.f  The 
second  word  is  “form.”  It  is  “the  jorm  as  indicative  of 
the  interior  nature.”^  Dr.  Vincent  speaks  of  “form”  as 
an  inadequate  rendering  of  the  Greek  word,  but  says, 
“Our  language  affords  no  better  word.  By  ‘form’  is  coir- 
monly  understood  ‘shape,’  ‘sensible  appearance.’  So  of 
Christ’s  form  (Mk.  16:  12).  But  the  form  in  this  sense 
cannot  apply  to  God.  It  here  means  that  expression  of 
being  which  is  identified  with  the  essential  nature  and 
character  of  God,  and  which  it  reveals.  This  expression 
of  God  cannot  be  conceived  by  us,  though  it  may  be  con¬ 
ceived  and  apprehended  by  pure  spiritual  intelligencies.”§ 
Again,  it  denotes  “outward  form,  but  as  including  one’s 


*  This  is  one  of  the  copulative  verbs,  called  such  because 
of  agreement  with  eimi  in  their  construction,  although  in 
reality  embodying  part  of  the  predicate.  Dr.  Vincent  re¬ 
marks  that,  “In  the  sense  of  being  this  verb  is  stronger 
than  the  simple  einai,  to  he;  denoting  being  which  is  from 

the  beginning,  and  therefore  attaching  to  a  person  as  a 
proper  characteristic;  something  belonging  to  him,  and  so 
running  into  the  idea  of  rightful  possession.'* * * § 

t  Robinson*s  Lexicon.  $  Dr.  Green. 

§  International  Critical  Commentary. 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


145 


habits,  activities  and  modes  of  action  in  general,’^  and 
implies  “that  the  outward  form  expresses  the  inner  es¬ 
sence,”  so  that  though  it  deals  with  externals  it  is  as 
expressing  that  which  is  internal.*  It  is  the  immediate, 
proper,  personal  investiture  of  the  Divine  essence.  The 
phrase,  “to  be  on  an  equality  with  God,”  clearly  bears 
upon  the  being  in  the  form  of  God.  First,  we  have  in  it 
what  refers  to  state  rather  than  to  time,  and  to  con- 
tinuity.f  It  was  continuity  in  the  state  which,  of  course, 
was  what  the  Lord  did  not  esteem  an  object  of  rapine. 
The  infinitive  here,  as  often,  is  the  object  of  a  verb, 
“denoting  a  mental  faculty,  impression,  or  act,  .  .  .  asser¬ 
tion  of  thought  or  will.”  The  verb  here  is  hegeomai,  to 
esteem,  to  count,  to  reckon.  The  adjective  Isos,  here 
used  adverbially,  means  “equal,  like,  alike,  similar,”  and 
is  spoken  of  measure,  quantity,  condition,  or  kind. 

The  result  of  this  analysis  is  that  we  learn  that  Jesus, 
prior  to  incarnation,  subsisted  or  lived  in  that  condition, 
or  state,  which  was  the  outward  manifestation  or  expres¬ 
sion  of  His  essential  being  and  nature,  which  is  none  other 
than  that  of  God,  for  His  state  was  that  of  being  on  an 
equality  with  God.  Neither  “the  form”  or  “equality” 


*  New  Test,  Synonyms.  Prof.  G.  R.  Berry.  See  also  re¬ 
marks  on  ^‘fashion,”  a  word  which,  though  similar  in 
meaning  to  “form,”  is  more  limited,  and  so  divinely  suited 
to  its  connection. 

t  “To  be” :  present  infinitive,  the  article  defining  the  ob¬ 
ject  Infinitive.  “On  an  equality  with  God”  is  the  predicate 
of  the  Infinitive  in  apposition  with  the  subject  ;  and 
“rapine”  is  in  predicative  apposition  with  the  Infinitive  it¬ 
self.  See  Grammar  of  Greek  Test.,’*  Dr.  Green,  pp.  325,  6. 


146 


Modernism 


touch  the  matter  of  essential  being,  but  relate  entirely  to 
that  which  as  to  condition  or  circumstances  becomes  or 
is  suitable  to  Godhead,  as  giving  outward  expression  to  the 
internal  or  essential  nature  of  the  Person.  Attributes  are 
not  therefore  included  in  this  form  or  equality,  for  they 
belong  to  the  nature,  to  the  Person.  Prerogatives,  or 
rights,  which  belong  to  the  Person  are  connected  with 
“the  form,”  or  “equality”  here  spoken  of,  and  these  are 
clearly  affected  by  the  actions  of  emptying  and  humbling 
Himself. 

Now  it  being  clear  that  essential  being  is  not  involved 
in  the  form  or  equality,  beyond  the  fact  that  they  are 
what  becomes  (as  to  outv/ard  expression)  the  essence  of 
Godhead,  we  must  conclude  that  this  outward  expression 
of  such  essence  can  only  pertain  to  One  who  is  of  that 
essence.  He  must  be  God  as  to  the  truth  of  Plis  Person. 
The  scriptures  which  assert  this  may  as  well  be  intro¬ 
duced  at  this  point. 

The  opening  verses  of  John’s  Gospel  are  very  explicit. 
“In  the  beginning  was  the  Word” — go  back  as  far  as  you 
please,  when  anything  began  to  be,  the  Word  already  was. 
“The  Word  was  with  God  and  the  Word  was  God'^’ — a 
distinct  Person,  yet  truly  One  to  whom  Deity  pertained. 
The  article  is  omitted.  It  is  not  the  God,  as  though  there 
was  no  other  Person  of  equal  position  and  character;  nor 
can  it  be  a  God,  as  though  He  was  one  among  many ;  but 
God.  Thus  He  is  characterised. 

He  is  the  Creator,  for  “all  things  received  being  through 
Him,  and  without  Him  not  one  thing  received  being  which 
has  received  being.”  He  is  not  spoken  of  as  being  created. 
“He  (it  is  emphatic)  was  in  the  beginning  with  God” — 
coexistent  in  distinctness  of  Person,  and  ever  the  same 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


147 


in  nature,  in  essence,  having  with  this  the  form  and 
equality  belonging  to  it.  Another  form  and  place  were 
taken  when  “the  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,’^ 
but  it  was  the  Word,  there  was  no  change  as  to  the  truth 
of  His  Person.  Though  He  was  not  flesh  before,  and 
only  actually  began  to  be  this  through  the  virgin  birth, 
it  is  the  same  Person  as  to  essential  being,  unchanged 
and  unchangeable  throughout  and  forever.  It  will  not  do 
therefore  to  say  that  John  speaks  of  what  He  was,  and 
that  this  was  given  up  when  He  became  flesh,  making  Him 
nothing  more  than  man.  This,  of  course,  must  be  con¬ 
sidered  in  relation  to  the  emptying  of  Phil.  2. 

Now  just  as  the  creation  of  all  things  is  predicated  of 
Him  prior  to  incarnation,  so  of  Him  in  incarnation  it  is 
as  plainly  stated  that  all  things  were  upheld  by  the  word 
of  His  power  (Heb.  1:  3).  This  connection  is  made  clear 
by  the  context.  God  had  spoken  to  the  fathers  in  many 
parts  and  in  many  ways  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  days  at 
the  end  of  that  period  during  which  He  had  thus  spoken 
He  spoke  in  the  Person  of  the  Son.*  It  is  said  of  this 


*  Heb.  1:  1,2:  it  is  en  huio,  “The  absence  of  the  article 
here  is  important,  though  difficult  to  render  in  English; 
the  result  is,  that  God,  speaking  in  the  prophets,  is  clearly 
distinct,  and  using  them  as  His  mouth.  En  huio,  literally 
‘in  Son,'  is  not  exactly  ‘as  Son,'  because  that  would  be  the 
character  of  the  speaking,  yet  is  perhaps  the  nearest  to  an 
adequate  expression.  It  is  an  instance  of  the  use  of  en. 
On  the  whole,  I  have  paraphrased  it,  ‘in  [the  person  of 
the]  Son.'  It  is  God  Himself  who  speaks;  not  by  another; 
not  as  the  Father,  nor  in  the  person  of  the  Father;  not 
merely  by  the  Holy  Ghost  using  a  person  not  divine,  but 
as  Himself  a  divine  person,  and  that  person  the  Son" 
{New  Trans.,  and  note,  J.  N.  D.). 


148 


Modernism 


Person  that  He  was  established  heir  of  all  things.  He  had 
made  all,  as  John  declares,  but  He  is  also  the  object  in 
view  according  to  the  purpose  of  God  who  by  Him  made 
the  worlds  {i.  e.,  the  universe).  These  things  are  neces¬ 
sarily  stated  in  this  way  since  they  bear  a  relation  to 
Him  as  come  into  the  place  of  man.  With  this  Col.  1:  16 
agrees.*  Further,  the  Person  here  called  “Son,”  that  is, 
Jesus,  who  came  in  the  days  spoken  of,  consummating 
God’s  testimony  in  the  prophets  (Rom.  15:  8),  is  de¬ 
clared  to  be  the  effulgencef  of  God’s  glory  and  the  exact 
expressions^  of  His  substance. §  He  as  man  is  this,  the 
full  presentation  of  the  glory  of  God,  so  that  He  is  fully 
manifested.  God  is  now  in  the  light,  nothing  remains 
dark  concerning  Him;  and  all  that  constitutes  the  essen¬ 
tial  being  of  God  is  expressed  in  the  incarnate  Son.  Thus 
He  is  the  imagej^  of  the  invisible  God  (Col.  1:  15),  an 


*  It  is  interesting  to  note  the  three  prepositions  used 
in  this  verse.  First,  ew,  i  e.,  in  the  power  of  His  person. 
He  being  “the  One  whose  intrinsic  power  characterized  the 
creation.  It  exists  as  His  creature.”  Then,  dia,  the  iii- 
strumental  power;  and  eis,  Tor.^  Thus  we  have  the  in¬ 
carnate  Son  presented  to  us  as  “the  characteristic  power, 
active  instrument  and  end”  of  all  the  creation  (Ibid). 

■f  Apaugasma,  “what  fully  presents  the  glory  which  is 
in  something  else.  Thus  light  makes  us  know  what  the 
sun  is ;  the  tabernacle,  what  the  pattern  in  the  mount  was.” 
— J.  N.  Darby. 

Charakter,  eikion.  1.  This  word  is  ^‘from  Charassein, 
to  engrave  or  inscribe ^  originally  a  graving-tool;  also  the 
die  on  which  a  device  is  cut.  It  seems  to  have  lost  that 
meaning,  and  always  signifies  the  impression  made  by  the 
die  or  graver.  Hence,  mark,  stamp,  as  the  image  on  a 
coin  (so  often)  which  indicate  its  nature  and  value,  or  the 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


149 


expression  used  of  Him  in  view  of  both  redemption  and 
incarnation,  as  the  context  shows.  He  is  “firstborn  of  all 
creation,”  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  this  preeminence 
must  be  His  as  having  become  man,  He  being  the  One 
who  has  created  all  things.  It  is  said  of  Him,  “He  is 
before  all,  and  all  things  subsist  together  by  Him,”  and 
in  Hebrews,  “Upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  His 
power.” 

These  scriptures  leave  no  doubt  as  to  how  we  are  to 
consider  Deity  in  relation  to  Jesus.  Every  attribute  and 
essential  characteristic  of  Godhead  is  plainly  involved  in 
them,  and  considered  as  coexistent  and  jointly  exercised 
with  the  servant-form  and  the  correlative  state  of  humilia¬ 
tion.  Eternally  pre-existent,  and  that  as  God;  distinct  in 
Person;  almighty,  all-wise,  all-knowing,  as  the  Creator 
of  all  and  the  Sustainer  of  all — these  are  relations  con¬ 
tinued  and  maintained  in  His  humanity,  however  great 
their  mystery  must  ever  remain  to  the  creature. 

“In  Him  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily” 


device  impressed  by  a  signet.”  Hence,  the  thought  is  that 
the  essential  being  of  God  is  stamped  upon  and  comes  into 
full  expression  in  the  person  of  the  Son,  for  He  bears  the 
exact  impress  of  the  Divine  nature  and  character.  2.  This 
word  is  closely  allied  to  the  former.  It  expresses  more 
than  mere  resemblance,  implies  representation,  and  is  used 
to  express  resemblance  in  some  essential  character.  It 
also  involves  the  idea  of  manifestation. — SeV‘Word  Studies 
in  N.  T.”  and  Inter.  Commentary. 

§  Hypostaseos,  “clearly  ‘substance,’  ‘essential  being,’  not 
‘person.’  It  is  of  God,  not  of  the  Father:  and  no  one  can 
see  the  use  of  this  word  in  LXX  and  not  see  its  force; 
and  even  its  early  ecclesiastical  use  confirms  this.” — 
J.  N.  Darby . 


150 


Modernism 


(Col.  2:9).  This,  it  may  be  said,  relates  to  Him  now, 
but  that  this  is  the  continuance  of  what  was  true  of  Him 
as  man  is  clear  from  Col.  T.  19,  20,  the  better  rendering 
of  which  is:  “In  Him  all  the  fulness  [of  the  Godhead] 
was  pleased  to  dwell,  and  by  Him  to  reconcile  all  things 
to  itself,  having  made  peace  by  the  blood  of  His  cross.” 
Here  three  words  call  for  consideration — fulness.  Godhead, 
bodily.  The  first  word,  pleroma,  is  variously  applied  in 
other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  but  here  it  is  plainly 
used  in  relation  to  Deity.  Paul  affirms 

*‘that  the  whole  fulness  of  Deity,  the  entire  plenitude 
of  the  divine  excellences,  energies,  and  powers,  resides  in 
Christ  .  .  .  The  idea  that  the  entire  fulness  of  the  God¬ 
head  is  manifested  in  Christ  is  fundamental  to  Chris¬ 
tianity,  and  is,  indeed,  a  wide-reaching  conception  difficult 
to  grasp  by  the  intellect — a  mystery  profoundly  significant 
and  precious  to  faith.’’  It  is  not  only  “the  spiritual  and  ethi¬ 
cal  perfections  of  Deity,”  but  also  “the  energies  and  powers 
which  produce  and  sustain  the  course  of  the  world.  It  is 
not  easy  to  separate  in  thought  the  cosmic  and  ethical 
elements  in  the  idea;  in  reality  the  two  must  blend  to 
form  a  complete  whole.  The  ethical  perfections  of  the 
Godhead  are  manifested  not  in  empty  space,  but  in  the 
complex  life  of  the  material  world,  in  which  they  must  be 
sustained  and  vindicated  by  physical  energies  and  powers. 
The  pleroma  of  the  Godhead,  therefore,  contains  not 
merely  the  totality  of  all  ethical  perfections,  but  all  divine 
energies  which  the  cosmos  displays;  and  all  these  being 
ascribed  without  limitation  to  the  Son,  there  arises  the 
necessary  inference  that  He  is  the  final  and  absolute 
manifestation  of  Deity  to  men.”* 

“Godhead”  in  this  passage  represents  a  different  Greek 
word  from  those  used  in  Acts  17:  29  and  Rom.  1:  20, 

*  A.  F.  Simpson,  M.  A.,  Encyc.  of  Religion  and  Ethics, 
James  Hastings,  Ed. 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


151 


though  in  all  three  cases  the  AM.  uses  this  English  word.* 
These  also  are  its  only  occurrences,  but  its  introduction  in 
Col.  1 :  19  is  really  necessary  to  make  the  statement  intelli¬ 
gible,  and  this  seems  fully  warranted  by  the  passage  before 
us  (Col.  2:9).  If  we  observ^e  the  distinction  between  the 
words  for  which  ‘Godhead’  is  used  the  force  of  the  pas¬ 
sages  will  be  more  clearly  seen.  In  Acts  17:  29  it  is  more 
properly  “the  Divine,”  a  familiar  philosophical  expression 
used  by  the  Athenians,  and  which  Paul  takes  up  simply 
to  emphasize  that  even  they,  with  scarcely  a  personal 
conception  of  God,  ought  not  to  debase  their  conception 
to  the  level  of  men’s  handiwork.  Hence  “that  which  is 
divine”  is  better  than  the  text,  “the  Godhead,”t  though 
“the  Divine”  would  be  more  literal.:j:  As  to  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  words  used  in  Rom.  1 :  20  and  Col.  2 :  9, 
the  former  is  the  quality,  and  the  latter  the  essence  of 
God.  The  former  relates  to  Divine  nature  and  properties, 
and  is  the  appropriate  word  when  the  reference  is  to  “such 
attributes  of  God  as  can  be  read  in  the  book  of  nature.” 
The  latter  relates  to  Divine  Personality,  and  is  the  appro¬ 
priate  word  when  the  assertion  deals  with  “the  fulness  of 
the  entire  (revealed  and  unrevealed)  Personality  of  God” 
dwelling  in  the  Son.  It  is  absolute,  not  merely  divine 
in  character. 

The  third  word  is  “bodily.”  This  considered  in  the 
light  of  the  verse  cannot  mean  other  than  that  in  Christ 
as  in  bodily  form  —  corporeally  —  the  fulness  of  Deity 
dwells.  It  does,  and  did,  from  the  time  of  His  taking  on 
the  prepared  body.  Though  the  verse  may  be  taken  to 

*  Col.  2:9,  theotetos;  Acts  17:29,  theion;  Rom.  1:20, 
theiotes. 

t  See  R.  V.,  margin;  New  Trans.,  J.  N.  D. 

X  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Jas.  Hastings,  Ed. 


152 


Modernism 


apply  to  Him  now  as  glorified,  it  cannot  be  this  exclu¬ 
sively,  for  He  is  in  the  same  body,  though  through  death 
a  change  has  come  to  it;  but  none  whatever  to  Him,  or 
that  fulness  of  which  it  was  the  temple. 

Commenting  upon  this  passage.  Dr.  Vincent  remarks, 

“The  present  tense  katoikei,  dwellethy  is  used  like  estin, 
is  (the  image) ,  chap.  1 ;  15,  to  denote  an  eternal  and  essen¬ 
tial  characteristic  of  Christ’s  being.  The  indwelling  of  the 
divine  fulness  in  Him  is  characteristic  of  Him  as  Christ 
from  all  ages  and  to  all  ages.  Hence  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  dwelt  in  Him  before  His  incarnation,  when  He 
was  in  the  form  of  God.  The  Word  in  the  beginning  was 
with  God  and  was  God  (John  1:  1).  It  dwelt  in  Him 
during  His  incarnation.  It  was  the  Word  that  became 
flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  full  of  grace  and  truth,  and  His 
glory  which  was  beheld  was  the  glory  as  of  the  Only- 
begotten  of  the  Father  (John  1:  14;  compare  1  John 
1:  1-3).  The  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwells  in  His 
glorified  humanity  in  heaven.  .  .  .  The  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  dwells  in  Him  in  a  bodily  way^  clothed  with  a 
body.  This  means  that  it  dwells  in  Him  as  one  having  a 
human  body.  This  could  not  be  true  of  His  pre-incarnate 
state  when  He  was  in  the  form  of  God,  for  the  human 
body  was  taken  on  by  Him  in  the  fulness  of  time,  when 
“He  became*  in  the  likeness  of  men,”  when  the  Word 
became  flesh.  The  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelt  in  His 
person  from  His  birth  to  His  ascension.  He  carried  His 
human  body  with  Him  into  heaven,  and  in  His  glorified 
body  now  and  ever  dwells  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  .  .  . 


*“ ‘Being  made’  (A.  V.)  is  wrong;  it  is  TDecoming,’ 
genomenoSy  what  He  was  not  before”  (J.  N.  D.  in  his  New 
Translation) . 

Dr.  Vincent  says,  gen^  having  become:  contrasted  with 
hyparchon,  subsisting  (ver.  6) :  He  entered  into  a  new 
state  (compare  John  1:  14;  Gal.  4;  4;  1  Tim.  3:  16). 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


153 


‘What  a  contrast  to  the  human  tradition  and  the  rudiments 
of  the  world’  (Meyer).  What  a  contrast  to  the  spiritual 
agencies  conceived  [by  the  vain  philosophy  and  traditions 
of  Judaic-Gnostic  heretics]  as  intermediate  between  God 
and  men,  in  each  of  which  the  divine  fulness  was  abridged, 
and  the  glory  shaded,  in  proportion  to  the  remoteness  from 
God  in  successive  emanation.”* 

There  can  be  no  serious  question  concerning  what  these 
scriptures  teach  as  to  the  Deity  of  Jesus.  It  was  really 
and  fully  pG<&sessed  by  Him  in  manhood.  With  Him  there 
was,  and  is,  unbroken  continuity  of  eternal  and  essential 
being  not  only  in  nature  and  character,  but  also  in  the 
exercise  of  the  attributes  of  Deity,  no  matter  how  great 
the  change  in  form  and  circumstances  which  mark  His 
humiliation.  What  limitation  as  being  man  He  may  have 
assumed  in  relation  to  the  manifestation  of  His  essential 
attributes  is  not'  now  the  question  before  us,  but  this  could 
never  be  inconsistent  with  or  contradictory  to  what  He 
was  in  His  very  being,  ever  truly  God  as  well  as  man.f 

2.  “Esteemed  it  not  rapine.”  I  have  already  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  equality  with  God  to  which  this  statement 
relates.  Only  one  word  here  claims  attention,  that  ren¬ 
dered  rapine  (A.  V.,  robbery).  The  context  must  deter¬ 
mine  its  significance,  for  there  is  little  help  to  be  found  in 


*  Word  Studies  in  the  N.  T. 

t  There  are  other  passages  worthy  of  careful  study,  but 
I  cannot  do  more  than  refer  my  reader  to  some  of  them: 
John  12:  37-41;  Matt.  1:  21 — 2:  6  with  Mic.  5:  1,  2;  1  Tim. 
3:16;  Tit.  2 :  13.  Further,  there  are  many  indirect  refer¬ 
ences  and  allusions  throughout  the  New  Testament  which 
not  only  confirm  the  truth  of  the  Deity  of  Jesus,  but  show 
that  the  whole  of  its  structure  and  teaching  is  interwoven 
with  it.  In  this  the  Gospels  abound. 


154 


Modernism 


the  slight  evidence  as  to  the  general  use  of  this  word 
{harpagmos) .  The  “equality”  being  correlative  with  the 
“form,”  it  seems  evident  that  the  vtrord  must  be  taken  as 
expressing  the  fact  that  Christ  did  not  esteem  His  being 
on  an  equality  with  God  as  that  which  should  be  held 
fast  at  all  cost,  and  never  relinquished,  but  eagerly 
grasped  so  as  to  resist  surrender,  if  the  occasion  arose  to 
meet  which  relinquishment  was  necessary.  The  occasion 
which  involved  this  as  an  absolute  necessity  was  indeed 
foreknown;  and  when  (if  I  may  so  speak)  llie  question  of 
meeting  it  arose,  if  the  attitude  of  the  Son  had  been  other¬ 
wise  than  here  stated.  He  would  have  grasped,  as  though 
seizing,  this  equality,  the  giving  up  of  which  was  so 
essential,  indeed  absolutely  required,  for  meeting  the  need 
of  the  occasion,  even  that  of  dealing  with  the  question  of 
sin  so  as  to  effect  eternal  redemption,  the  glory  of  God, 
and  the  overthrow  of  every  evil  power.  The  apostle  asserts 
that  the  very  opposite  was  true  of  Him.  He  looked  be 
yond  this  to  the  results  for  God  and  man  which  would  be 
accomplished  through  meeting  the  need  of  the  occasion  in 
the  only  way  in  which  it  could  be  answered,  even  His 
own  self-emptying  and  humiliation.  Thus  in  Him  was 
found  most  blessedly  expressed  the  very  mind  to  which 
the  apostle  exhorts  when  he  says,  “Let  nothing  be  in  the 
spirit  of  strife  or  vain  glory,  but,  in  lowliness  of  mind, 
each  esteeming  the  other  as  more  excellent  than  them¬ 
selves;  regarding  not  each  his  own  [qualities,  or,  advan¬ 
tages],  but  each  those  of  others  also.  For  let  this  mind 
be  in  you  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus,”  etc.  He, 
then,  willingly  relinquished  all,  He  emptied  Himself.  He 
thus  became  the  Lamb  of  God  foreknown  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  (1  Pet.  1:  20,  R.  V.),  and  He 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


155 


came  forth  in  the  fulness  of  time,  giving  up  one  form  to 
take  up  another  for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  the 
Divine  plan  so  richly  fraught  with  blessing  for  others,  for 
poor  sinful  men. 

3.  “But  emptied  Himself.^^ 

^‘The  general  sense  is  that  He  divested  Himself  of  that 
peculiar  mode  of  existence  which  was  proper  and  peculiar 
to  Him  as  one  with  God.  In  so  doing,  He  did  not  divest 
Himself  of  His  divine  nature.  The  change  was  a  change 
of  state:  the  form  of  a  servant  for  the  form  of  God.  His 
personality  continued  the  same.  His  self -emptying  was 
not  self-extinction^  nor  was  the  Divine  Being  changed 
into  a  mere  man.  In  His  humanity  He  retained  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  Deity,  and  in  His  incarnate  state  carried 
out  the  mind  which  animated  Him  before  His  incarnation. 
He  was  not  unable  to  assert  equality  with  God.  He  was 
able  not  to  assert  it.*^* 

This  statement  cannot  be  made  to  define  what  limita¬ 
tions  the  Lord  may  have  assumed  in  His  humiliation; 
these  can  only  be  learned  from  a  study  of  the  whole  scrip¬ 
tural  testimony  which  relates  to  Him  as  in  that  state; 
but  it  does  express  the  fulness  of  His  relinquishment  on 
the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  it  is  defined  for  us  by, 
and  includes,  all  the  details  of  the  humiliation  which 
follow. 

While  nothing  in  the  entire  passage  which  we  are  con¬ 
sidering  can  be  rightly  construed  as  defining  the  assumed 
limitations  of  the  incarnate  state  of  our  Lord,  it  is  ne¬ 
cessary  to  consider  what  the  scriptural  testimony  may  be 
to  those  limitations  in  view  of  the  modem  use  of  this 
particular  expression — “He  emptied  Himself” — in  the  var- 


*  Word  Studies  in  the  N.  T.  (Dr.  Vincent) 


156 


Modernism 


ious  forms  of  the  kenotic  theory.  All  of  these  to  a  greater 
or  lesser  degree  carry  the  idea  of  self-limitation  to  such 
an  extent  that  the  essential  unchangeableness  of  Deity  as 
this  relates  to  Jesus  is  practically  denied.  Along  with  this, 
therefore,  we  must  conceive  of  suspended  inter-Trinitarian 
relations  and  activities,  and  so  no  longer  think  of  the 
Trinity  in  revelation,  for  one  of  the  Divine  Persons, 
though  He  was  God  before  incarnation,  must  then  have 
abandoned  not  only  the  form  of  Divine  Glory  but  also 
Divine  Being,  becoming  merely  man.  Thus  the  emptying 
becomes  not  simply  a  relinquishment  of  “form”  and  cer¬ 
tain  assumed  limitations  in  the  use  of  the  attributes  of 
Deity,  but  the  actual  non-possession  of  those  attributes, 
and  so  the  loss  of  being  to  which  they  are  essential  and 
intrinsic.  The  inevitable  result  of  these  views  is  to  make 
Deity  in  its  real  sense  inapplicable  to  the  Lord  Jesus. 
His  divinity  is  stated  to  consist  in  the  uniqueness  of  His 
moral  character,  the  might  of  His  moral  appeal;  but  not 
in  the  application  to  Him  of  terms  referring  to  God,  the 
ascription  of  names,  attributes,  and  works  of  God,  or  the 
New  Testament  designation  of  Him  as  Son  of  God  in  a 
metaphysical  sense.  All  is  reduced  to  an  ethical  basis,  the 
omwi-attributes  are  not  to  be  sought  in  relation  to  Him; 
He  is  simply  to  be  considered  as  the  Revealer  and  Bearer 
of  religious  truth. 

Let  us  turn  to  consider  what  Scripture  presents  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  this  important  phase  of  our  subject.  First,  the 
element  of  glory  is  very  distinctly  associated  with  the 
earthly  life  of  our  Lord  (John  1:14;  2:11;  11:  4,40). 
There  was  that  of  this  nature  which  He  did  not  relinquish, 
but  which  instead  received  its  manifestation  among  men. 
This,  too,  must  be  distinguished  from  the  glory  to  which 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


157 


He  refers  when  saying  to  the  Father,  “And  now  glorify 
Me,  thou  Father,  along  with  Thyself,  with  the  glory  which 
I  had  along  with  Thee  before  the  world  was”  (John  17: 
5,  New  Trans.).  There  was  no  change  at  any  time  in 
His  cosmic  relations,  these  being  continually  exercised, 
for  He  was  truly  God.  Therefore  it  cannot  be  a  re¬ 
entrance  upon  that,  of  which  He  speaks.  It  was  never 
relinquished.  It  is  rather  His  entrance  as  man  upon  those 
conditions  and  circumstances  which  characterized  His 
presence  and  place  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was, 
so  that  the  form  of  God  which  He  surrendered  is  now 
entered  upon  as  being  man  thus  glorified.  It  is  association 
with  the  Father  as  man  in  the  glory,  in  the  same  way  in 
which  He  was  in  association  with  Him  before  entering 
the  incarnate  state.  This  then  involves  nothing  as  to  His 
essential  being  and  attributes.  It  is  a  matter  of  form,  and 
the  way  in  which  the  place  connected  with  it  is  now 
occupied.  This  form  was  given  up,  and  therefore  the 
glory  spoken  of  in  relation  to  our  Lord’s  earthly  life  is 
distinct  from  it.  What  is  this  glory?  Does  it  consist  in 
the  manifestation  of  the  attributes  of  Deity,  both  those 
of  power  and  moral  perfection — love  and  light  displayed 
in  divinely  perfect  service  and  revelation,  intertwined  with 
the  suited  exercise  of  other  essential  attributes  of  His 
being,  since  these  ever  remained  His  though  the  form 
agreeable  to  the  Person  possessing  them  was  laid  aside? 
Plainly,  there  was  the  glory  of  relationship  as  an  Only- 
begotten  in  all  the  beauty  of  character  and  fellowship, 
absolutely  maintained  in  unbroken  enjoyment,  and  mani¬ 
fested  through  all  the  life  which  the  disciples  contem¬ 
plated.  Because  of  this  He  could  say,  “He  that  hath 
seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father.”  It  was  in  this  glory  that 


158 


Modernism 


He  dwelt  among  them  “full  of  grace  and  truth.”  But 
there  was  also  the  glory  of  His  power — “This  beginning 
of  signs  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  His 
glory.”  Again,  it  breaks  forth  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus. 
He  was  omnipotent.  But  was  He  not  also  omniscient  and 
omnipresent?  Does  not  the  realization  of  this,  though 
actually  looking  upon  a  man,  constrain  Nathanael  to  say, 
“Thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel?” 
His  miracles.  His  knowledge  of  the  unspoken  thought.  His 
searching  of  the  hearts  of  men.  His  prescience,  all  witness 
to  His  essential  glory,  while  His  life.  His  death.  His  teach¬ 
ing,  His  revelation  of  the  Father,  equall}^  declare  it. 
Through  all  His  Deity  shone  forth,  illuminating,  healing, 
blessing,  but  always  and  necessarily  as  in  the  form  of  a 
servant. 

There  is  no  evidence  to  substantiate  limitations  as  to 
the  possession  by  Jesus  of  Deity  and  its  attributes.  The 
only  evidence  as  to  limitation  in  any  way  relates  to  the  use 
of  what  He  indubitably  possessed.  No  limitation  of 
cosmic  functions  can  be  shown,  while  yet  it  is  also  evident 
that  His  exercise  of  the  attributes  of  Deity  as  in  the 
servant-form,  performing  works  of  power  for  the  glory  of 
God  and  on  behalf  of  others,  was  ever  in  entire  depend¬ 
ence  upon,  submission  to,  and  under  the  directions  of  His 
Father  to  His  fullest  delight.  He  did  always  the  things 
which  pleased  the  Father.  Without  Him  He  did  nothing, 
as  He  says,  “The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself;”  that  is, 
as  an  independent  source  of  will  or  action.  He  could 
never  act  independently,  for  in  the  most  absolute  way  He 
and  the  Father  were  one.  This  neither  denies,  nor  even 
limits,  the  full  and  perfect  Deity  of  Jesus.  It  relates  only 
to  its  manifestation  and  the  use  of  its  attributes  in  the 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


159 


place  of  service  and  humiliation,  into  which  He  came  as 
man  in  the  blessed  exercise  of  Divine  love  and  compassion 
for  men. 

In  the  light  of  all  that  may  be  gathered  from  a  careful 
study  of  the  Gospels,  no  ground  can  be  found  for  the 
assumption  that  His  poverty  (2  Cor.  8:9)  means  an  es¬ 
sential  5ey-limitation  of  Deity.  Limitation  for  Him  is 
found  in  the  divestment  of  that  which  constituted  “the 
form  of  God.”  This  must  not  be  construed  to  involve  a 
limitation  of  His  essential  being,  of  the  attributes  of  Deity, 
for  then  some  change  must  have  taken  place  in  the  Person, 
and  thus  immediately  the  truth  of  His  Godhead  is  affected. 
This  is  impossible,  for  He  abides  ever  the  same,  from 
everlasting  to  everlasting,  the  Eternal.  He  remained  when 
man,  as  omniscient,  omnipotent,  omnipresent  as  ever  He 
was.  This  is  not  saying,  that  as  man  He  was  omni 
present;  but  that  the  Person  in  that  bodily  form  was  not 
circumscribed  by  “the  temple  of  His  body.”  He  was  not 
omnipresent  in  that  bodily  form,  but  Pie  had  not  ceased 
to  exercise  any  of  His  attributes,  even  though  He  had  laid 
aside  the  circumstances  and  conditions  accordant  with  the 
eternal  characteristics  of  His  being.  Is  not  this  the  won¬ 
drous  m3^stery  of  His  Person? — “  God  manifest  in  flesh.” 

This  limitation  involved,  we  may  rightly  say,  restric¬ 
tion  in  the  exercise  of  prerogatives  which  belong  to  Deity. 
This  is  plainly  evident  as  regards  Himself,  but  there  are 
those  too  which  He  did  not  exercise  in  relation  to  men 
in  view  of  the  place  He  had  taken  and  the  object  before 
Him.  For  example.  He  did  not  judge  those  who  so 
wickedly  mistreated  Him,  blasphemed  against  Him,  threat¬ 
ened  His  life  and  finally  killed  Him.  Yet  He  might  have 
called  for  twelve  legions  of  angels.  He  might  have  com- 


160 


Modernism 


manded  the  earth  to  open  and  swallow  them  up  as  in  the 
case  of  Korah  and  his  company,  or  rained  down  fire  from 
heaven  as  upon  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  or  caused  Jeru¬ 
salem  to  fall  in  ruins  as  did  Jericho  of  old.  But  the  Son 
came  not  to  judge,  but  to  save.  Yet,  as  Son  of  Man,  He 
had  the  authority  to  execute  judgment,  but  in  His  perfect 
obedience  He  still  awaits  the  time  appointed  of  the  Father 
to  exercise  this  authority.  He  had  the  power  to  make  the 
stones  bread,  but  the  place  He  had  taken  forbade  the 
exercise  of  His  right  to  do  so  under  the  circumstances. 
He  had  the  power  to  mitigate  any  of  His  sufferings,  even 
those  of  the  excruciating  death  by  crucifixion,  but  He  did 
not,  either  as  to  His  bodily  agony,  for  the  awful  thirst 
was  there  (as  He  lets  us  know  when  He  cries,  ‘‘I  thirst”), 
nor  as  to  the  dreadful  suffering  of  both  soul  and  spirit,  as 
witness  the  anguish  of  Gethsemane,  and  on  the  cross  it 
could  not  be  less  but  greater,  as  again  witnessed  by  His 
cry,  “My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me?” 

Humiliation  for  Him  was  not  in  being  less  really  God 
than  He  was  before  incarnation,  but  it  is  found  in  the 
other  “form,”  which  He  took,  with  its  attendant  condi¬ 
tions,  circumstances,  sufferings,  even  to  the  death  of  the 
cross.  His  poverty  clearly  consisted  in  this  change  of 
“form”  and  what  it  involved  in  service  and  sacrifice. 

When  it  is  said,  “The  Word  became  flesh,”  it  cannot 
be  made  to  mean  that  He  of  whom  this  is  stated  ceased 
to  be  God  and  was  only  man — flesh.  It  does  mean,  as 
all  that  we  have  considered  bears  witness,  that  He  who 
was  and  ever  remained  God  took  up — may  I  say,  incor¬ 
porated? — as  part  of  His  essential  being  (and  so  became) 
flesh,  dwelling  in  this  bodily  temple  among  men.  Efforts 
are  made  to  press  to  the  same  extreme  and  illogical  con- 


The  Deity  of  Jesus 


161 


elusion  the  expressions,  “In  the  likeness  of  men,”  “In 
figure  as  a  man,”  and  “In  the  likeness  of  flesh  of  sin;” 
but  they  have  already  been  considered  at  some  length  in 
Chaps.  IV.  and  V. 

We  maintain,  therefore,  the  absolute  /zow-limitation  of 
Deity  in  Jesus  along  with  His  full  and  perfect  humanity, 
though  recognizing  limitation  in  the  exercise  of  both  the 
attributes  and  prerogatives  pertaining  to  Deity,  in  so  far 
as  their  manifestation  before  men  is  concerned,  since  He 
was  in  manhood  and  the  servant-form;  this  involving 
however  no  change  in  His  cosmic  relations.  With  this 
may  we  not  also  think  of  a  gradual  communication  to  the 
human  consciousness  of  Jesus  of  the  will,  purpose,  knowl¬ 
edge,  belonging  to  Deity? — for  He  grew  and  waxed  strong, 
filled  with  wisdom,  and  God^s  grace  was  upon  Him  (Luke 
2:  40).  Is  not  this  the  explanation  of  that  difficult  pas¬ 
sage  in  Mark  13:32?  As  omniscient  He  surely  knew,  but, 
as  being  man  and  in  the  form  of  a  servant.  He  governed 
Himself  by  that  which  was  communicated  to  Him  as  such. 
Though  the  human  may  not  be  thought  to  compass  the 
infinite,  yet  both  are  perfectly  united  in  the  blessed  Person 
of  Jesus.  Therefore,  as  man,  serving  among  men.  He 
acted  according  to  the  limitations  of  that  position.  He, 
the  Man  of  faith  and  obedience,  ordered  His  acts  and 
words  according  to  the  communications  vouchsafed  to 
Him. 

Yet  allowing  the  foregoing,  it  must  not  be  construed  to 
mean  that  He  only  possessed  Deity  “merely  so  far  as  was 
compatible  with  the  truth  of  human  growth  and  the 
capacity  of  His  expanding  consciousness.”  This  would 
not  be  Deity,  but  merely  a  gradual  growth  in  divinity, 
a  kind  of  evolution  of  the  divine  in  the  human  personality 


162 


Modernism 


“in  actual  growth  and  development  from  germ  to  full 
organization,  from  infancy  to  ripe  manhood/’  as  it  is  said. 
Such  an  idea,  nowhere  countenanced  in  Scripture,  denies 
the  truth  of  the  Deity  of  Jesus,  however  much  it  may 
affirm  the  truth  of  His  humanity.  We  confidently  affirm 
both  in  the  light  of  all  we  have  considered,  and  bow  in 
adoring  worship  at  the  feet  of  Him  who  is  thus  revealed 
to  us  in  God’s  holy  Word. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


The  death  of  Jesus — was  it  a  supreme  example  only,  the 
consummation  of  a  perfect  life  of  self-sacrifice, 
or  was  it  for  atonement  as  a  propitiatory 
and  substitutionary  sacrifice? 

SIN  and  death  are  linked  together,  so  that  views  as 
to  either  fundamentally  affect  the  other.  In  the 
popular  evolutionary  program  sin  can  only  be  the 
by-product  of  man’s  still  imperfect  state,  supposed  to  be 
diminishing  as  the  program  unfolds,  though  the  results  of 
about  5000  years  of  human  history  do  not  demonstrate 
this.  We  must  not  forget,  however,  the  vast  eons  which 
have  passed  since  the  evolution  of  the  Hominidae  began, 
so  that  we  could  hardly  expect  to  detect  a  change  even 
in  several  thousands  of  years.  Or  you  may  consider  sin 
to  be  that  manner  of  life  or  action  which  is  so  defined  by 
legislation  enacted  for  the  general  benefit  of  the  evolving 
race.  That  is,  that  as  community  life  developed  certain 
things  were  found  detrimental,  not  only  to  the  individual, 
but  also  to  the  community  with  which  he  was  identified; 
these  things  were  legislated  against;  thus  the  concept  of 
sin,  its  discord  and  lawlessness,  was  formed  in  man’s 
consciousness.  From  this  viewpoint  all  is  considered  as 
the  outcome  of  social  heredity.  Society  is  the  school  in 
which  men  learn  to  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong. 
Custom  is  the  head-master.  In  this,  it  is  said,  lies  the 
key  to  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  judgments  which  make 
up  the  ethical  codes  of  every  age  and  race.  Thus  the 
idea  of  sin  took  shape,  and  has  been  woven  into  the 


164 


Modernism 


evolutionary  fabric.  Strange  that  with  ever-increasing 
enactment  of  laws  sin  does  not  decrease,  but  increasingly 
manifests  itself.  If  the  growth  and  development  of  laws 
be  taken  as  evidence  of  an  ever-rising  ethical  standard 
among  men,  there  is  also  along  with  it  an  ever-growing 
record  of  human  depravity. 

These  ideas  undermine  all  sense  of  responsibility  to  God, 
and  deny  that  sin  can  have  any  bearing  upon  His  relation 
to  man.  How  could  it,  since  he  is  not  the  product  of 
direct  and  special  creation,  but  simply  the  result  of  what 
was  commenced  in  the  protoplasm  some  few  hundred 
thousand  years  ago!  Death  has  no  moral  link  with  sin, 
though  the  former  is  the  direct  consequence  of  the  latter; 
and  salvation  is  not  from  judgment  which  sin  merits  as 
an  awful  breach  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  order  esta¬ 
blished  by  the  Creator,  but  is  simply  social  and  civic 
betterment,  humanitarian  uplift,  development  in  the  social 
consciousness  of  what  is  good.  It  is  proclaimed  that  the 
standard  and  example  is  found  in  Christ — His  life.  His 
character.  His  ideas,  constitute  the  goal  toward  which  the 
race  must  ever  rise.  Salvation  is  found  in  the  attainment 
of  His  mind  and  spirit. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  hear  the  religio-evolu- 
tionist  saying  that, 

‘‘Old  ways  of  thinking  about  the  cross  have  become 
impossible  for  him.  Substitutionary  and  forensic  ideas 
for  him  have  ceased  to  be.  They  have  not  simply  changed, 
they  have  lost  all  reality,  cast  as  they  are  in  legalistic 
terms,  and  tangled  as  they  are  with  what  to  him  is  an 
outworn  cosmology.  They  are  impossible  for  his  uses. 
To  him  substitutionary  or  forensic  atonement  is  artificial 
and  immoral.  It  is  unworthy  of  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.’^ 


The  Death  of  Jesus 


165 


Further,  realizing  that  the  Christian  interpreter  has  al¬ 
ways  linked  the  sacrificial  t3^es  of  the  Old  Testament 
with  the  death  of  Christ  as  imparting  both  instruction 
and  illustration  in  regard  to  it,  and  his  right  to  do  so  is 
justified  by  many  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  our 
Modernist  hastens  to  correct  these  thoughts,  for  “clearer 
knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  line  of  its 
development  convinces  the  evolutionist  that,  on  the  whole, 
the  sacrificial  system  of  Judaism  was  not  so  much  antici¬ 
patory  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  as  it  was  reminiscent  of 
the  primitive  rites  of  Canaan.  To  seek  for  the  satisfying 
meaning  of  the  atonement  around  the  blood-stained  altars 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  to  him  to  go  astray.’^*  This 
delusion  is  the  product  of  those  theories  of  Higher  Criti¬ 
cism,  according  to  which  the  sacrificial  legislation  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  the  work  of  men  during  the  Josiah-Ezra 
period,  instead  of  being  delivered  to  the  people  by  Moses 
forty  years  before  they  even  crossed  Jordan.  Then  the 
“Thus  saith  the  Lord,”  so  often  prefixed  to  the  ordin¬ 
ances  and  regulations  of  sacrifice,  is  a  plain  libel  upon  the 
Divine  name  and  character.  This  not  only  casts  entire 
discredit  upon  the  Pentateuch,  but  since  it  is  woven  into 
every  other  part  of  Scripture  in  a  marvelous  way,  the 
whole  becomes  affected  as  to  its  reliability,  authority, 
and  trustworthiness. 

Thus,  too,  the  substitutionary  and  propitiatory  aspects 
of  sacrifice  are  wrought  into  the  entire  testimony  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  from  AbeFs  lamb  to  Christ,  the  Lamb  of  God,  by 
whose  precious  blood  we  are  alone  redeemed,  and  through 


*  *‘The  Evolutionist  at  Calvary C  The  Expositor^  Lon¬ 
don,  April,  1923.  (Italics  mine.) 


166 


Modernism 


whom  by  virtue  of  His  sacrifice  the  righteousness  of  God 
is  upon  all  who  believe,  they  being  justified  freely  by 
God’s  grace  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Je¬ 
sus;  whom  God  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through 
faith  by  His  blood  (John  1:  29;  1  Pet.  1:  18-21;  Rom.  3: 
22-25). 

The  whole  argument  cis  to  the  sacrifices  and  Levitical 
economy  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  founded  upon 
the  fact  that  they  are  the  shadow  of  good  things  to  come, 
even  of  heavenly  things,  those  better  things  which  are 
so  often  referred  to  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  They  were  not 
reminiscent  of  the  awful  practices  and  human  sacrifices 
of  Canaanite  idolatry  with  all  of  its  abhorrent  moral  de¬ 
pravity,  too  vile  to  speak  of  in  detail.  There  is  not  only 
plain  legislation  against  this  throughout  the  Pentateuch, 
with  unsparing  judgment  for  violation  of  its  precepts, 
but  there  is  the  record  too  of  God’s  exterminating  judg¬ 
ments  upon  the  Canaanite  nations  because  of  their  evil; 
God  thus  acting  to  exterminate  an  incurable  moral  plague, 
which  could  be  endured  no  longer.  In  view  of  this,  to 
speak  of  the  sacrificial  ritual  which  is  so  intimately  bound 
up  with  all  this  legislation  as  reminiscent  of  Canaanitish 
rites  is  utterly  fallacious.  At  what  stage  of  the  evolu¬ 
tionary  process  the  mentality  of  these  critics  may  be 
placed  is  hard  to  say,  but  it  would  appear  to  be  quite 
low  in  the  scale  as  yet. 

The  religio-evolutionary  view  of  the  cross  of  Christ  is 
that  it  presents  the  great  truth  of  what  God  is  always 
doing.  In  explaining  this  a  statement  is  given  as  to  the 
nature  of  sin,  the  relation  of  death  to  it,  and  so  of  Christ’s 
death.  It  is  said  that  “evolution  reveals  an  advancing 
purpose  of  God,  pushing  ever  on  toward  higher  and  richer 


The  Death  of  Jesus 


167 


realization  of  the  meaning  of  life.  In  the  process  of  the 
world’s  development,  those  forms,  and  only  those  forms, 
have  entered  into  life,  have  been  one  with  God,  have 
carried  forward  the  process  of  advancing  evolution,  which 
have  held  their  lives  cheap.  Always  it  is  the  organisms 
that  have  been  content  with  things  as  they  are,  that  have 
set  themselves  athwart  the  advancing  purpose  of  God, 
that  have  been  the  evil  powers,  the  sinful  forces  and 
individuals.” 

From  this  we  are  given  the  definition  of  sin:  “In  the 
light  of  evolution  the  very  essence  of  sin  is  in  holding 
back  the  advancing  purpose  of  God  in  the  life  of  the 
world.”  And  again,  “The  very  essence  of  sin  and  failure 
is  the  holding  oneself  apart  from  God’s  advancing  pur¬ 
pose.” 

Since  the  forms  in  this  process  which  are  one  with  God 
have  held  their  lives  cheap,  “It  has  always  been  the 
organisms  that  would  risk  something,  would  dare  the  dan- 
.gers  of  the  new  path,  that  would  let  go  of  life  rather 
than  let  go  of  the  purpose  of  God,  that  have  carried  for¬ 
ward  the  process  of  evolution  to  new  heights.”  Here 
death  comes  in,  for  “the  power  which  saves  is  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  laying  down  of  life.” 

We  are  assured  that  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  in  His  ideals 
and  Gospel,  we  have 

“The  purpose  of  God,  the  loving  advancing  purpose  for 
the  race,  clearly  and  positively  seen.  And  the  cross  means 
that  men  set  themselves  against  that  purpose  .  .  From  the 
cross  shines  forth  also  in  transcendent  glory  the  principle 
found  all  through  the  life  of  the  world,  .  .  that  the  world 
finds  its  salvation  by  the  laying  down  of  life  so  that  the 
very  central  principle  of  developing  life  is  that  very  law  of 


168 


Modernism 


sacrifice,  of  daring,  of  willingness  to  risk,  of  the  laying 
down  of  the  life  for  the  good  of  others,  which  is  shown 
most  clearly  in  the  cross.  It  is  the  law  of  the  cross  by 
which  evolution  has  got  forv/ard  ...  I  like  to  speak  of  it 
as  the  law  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  fittest,  as  over  against 
the  law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  It  reaches  back 
through  the  whole  process  of  developing  life  on  the  earth. 
Without  this  law  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  fittest,  the  mother 
giving  herself  for  the  life  of  her  young,  the  father  battling 
for  food  to  maintain  the  brood,  the  wolf  for  the  pack,  and 
the  pack  for  the  wolf,  the  operation  of  this  law  of  the 
laying  down  of  life,  dim,  shadowy,  yet  tremendously  power¬ 
ful;  without  this,  life  would  have  been  extinct  before  man 
came  on  the  scene.  And  with  the  coming  of  man  came 
the  chance  for  the  glorious  and  full  outworking  of  this 
law,  the  definite  subordination  of  the  law  of  survival  to  the 
law  of  sacrifice.”  This,  it  is  said,  “points  straight  to 
Calvary.  It  is  a  law  of  sacrifice,  of  sin-bearing,  (?)  of 
daring,  of  laying  down  the  life  for  the  good  of  others  .  .  . 
How  wonderful  and  glorious  is  the  operation  of  this  law 
in  human  living.  Every  child  comes  into  life  through  a 
mother’s  pangs,  and  grows  through  the  sacrifice  of  its 
parents.  Truth  advances  by  men  who  dare  to  be  martyrs. 
Civilization  gets  forward  through  patriots  who  love  their 
country  or  their  kind  more  than  they  love  life.  It  is  at 
work  all  about  us,  this  cosmic  law  of  progress  through  the 
sacrifice  of  the  fittest. 

“This  which  is  found  everywhere  comes  to  fullest,  most  dra¬ 
matic,  most  appealing  manifestation  in  the  cross  of  Christ. 
Just  as  in  His  living  we  have  come  to  see  the  perfect  life, 
not  something  apart  from  common  human  life,  but  the  ful¬ 
filment  of  all  noble  living,  so  in  His  death  we  may  and 
should  see  the  perfect  death,  the  setting  forth  once  for 
all  of  this  cosmic  principle,  this  law  on  which  God  is 
always  acting,  this  law  on  which  God  has  built  the  world, 
this  law  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  fittest.” 

It  is  also  argued  that  the  operation  of  this  law  de- 


The  Death  of  Jesus 


169 


monstrates  the  true  meaning  of  the  law  of  the  survival 
of  the  fittest.  In  connection  with  this  we  are  treated  to 
a  definition  of  atonement, 

“It  is  the  paradox  of  the  process  of  evolution  that  only 
those  who  have  died  to  help  life  forward  have  survived. 
We  are  the  children  and  heirs  not  only  of  those  who  have 
lived,  but  even  more  of  those  who  have  died.  Benj.  Kidd 
states  the  law  of  Darwin  thus:  Tf  A  can  kill  B  before 
B  can  kill  A,  then  the  race  becomes  more  and  more  a  race 
of  A’s,  possessing  A’s  qualities.  But  as  life  mounts  higher, 
it  becomes  increasingly  clear  that  another  law  is  at  work, 
which  may  be  stated  thus:  If  A  lays  down  his  life  for 
B,  then  the  spirit  of  A  takes  possession  of  B,  and  lives 
on  in  him  and  comes  to  dominate  the  race.^  There  is 
atonement  at  work.” 

Apply  this  “law.”  Christ  laid  down  His  life  for  the 
world  over  1900  years  ago;  has  His  spirit,  His  mind^ 
taken  possession  or  even  perceptibly  come  to  dominate 
the  world?  Whatever  outward  advance  there  has  been, 
has  the  moral  and  spiritual  state  advanced  since  His  day? 
If  He  was  anything  He  was  moral  and  spiritual,  and  His 
death  is  taken  to  be  the  consummation  of  His  ethical 
perfection. 

This  might  seem  more  than  enough  to  make  clear  what 
the  Modernist  teaches  as  to  the  meaning  and  value  of  tlie 
death  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  But  it  may  be  as  well  to  see 
what  he  thinks  is  its  individual  application,  and  find  what 
is  his  definition  of  salvation. 

“How  does  the  evolutionist  find  the  cross  of  Christ  pos¬ 
sessed  of  saving  power  over  the  individual?  To  answer 
that  he  must  define  salvation.  Is  not  this  salvation,  as  the 
evolutionist  defines  it  in  its  meaning  for  individual  ex- 


170 


Modernism 


perience — ^the  realization  by  an  individual  of  his  highest 
capacities,  the  entering  into  the  best  and  noblest  possible 
living?  If  that  be  salvation,  then  there  is  a  clear  connec¬ 
tion  between  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  per¬ 
sonal  salvation.” 

This  connection  is  defined  for  us  in  four  ways: 

1.  “It  is  the  supreme  manifestation  of  the  principle  of 
life  and  salvation  as  Jesus  saw  it.  What  is  life  as  Jesus 
saw  it?  Not  being  safe,  but  being  a  saviour.  Not  play¬ 
ing  safe,  but  playing  the  game.  He  teaches  us  that  the 
value  of  life  lies  in  risking  it,  in  laying  it  down  for  a  man 
or  a  cause.  Life  is  given  us  to  be  spent,  to  be  given  up; 
we  are  given  life  in  order  that  we  may  die  splendidly. 
Some  such  message  is  central  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
And  that  message  He  puts  in  unforgettable  form,  seals 
beyond  question,  by  taking  His  own  life,  while  still  young, 
and  flinging  it  away  (?) ;  looking  death  in  the  face,  and 
saying,  ‘Here  is  life.^  There,  in  His  death,  is  our  eternal 
and  undying  inspiration  and  challenge  to  a  life  that  dares 
to  sacrifice.  His  death  proves  His  teaching,  and  His  res¬ 
urrection  seals  it. 

2.  “The  death  of  Jesus,  the  Eevealer  of  God,  is  the 
clearest  proof  that  God  is  with  us  in  this  kind  of  life  that 
is  saved  by  losing  ...  It  tells  us  that  the  self-sacrificing 
life  is  the  most  divine  life.*  The  stamp  of  divinity  is  on 
the  one  who  dares  to  die. 

3.  “What  really  saves  me,  saves  the  individual,  is  not 
something  which  Jesus  did  1900  years  ago.  How  can  a 
past  fact  have  present  vital  power ?t  .  .  .  What  saves  me 


*  Then  according  to  comparisons  just  made  all  life  is  of 
this  character,  even  that  of  the  lower  animals. 

t  But  it  is  just  this  that  he  has  stated  to  be  the  working 
of  atonement:  A^s  death  for  B  results  in  A’s  spirit  pos* 
sessing  and  dominating  the  race.  Truly,  “The  legs  of  the 
lame  hang  loose”  (Prov.  26:  7,  R.  V.). 


The  Death  of  Jesus 


171 


is  something  God  does  now,  something  He  is  always  doing, 
something  that  is  part  of  His  very  nature,  and  has  been 
wrought  by  Him  into  the  very  stuff  of  the  world  He  is 
making.  I  am  saved  by  the  self-sacrifice  of  God  now, 
mediated  to  me  through  parents  and  friends,  through  all 
who  risk  their  lives  that  my  life  might  be  better;  and 
Calvary  is  the  supreme,  the  unique  proof  and  forthsetting 
of  that  great  principle  which  saves  me  to-day. 

4.  “The  cross  saves  me  by  calling  me  into  a  fellowship 
of  sacrifice  and  service.  It  is  salvation  of  the  highest 
sort,  to  be  led  into  self-forgetfulness,  through  absorbing 
interest  in  a  great  person  or  a  great  cause.  The  evolu¬ 
tionist  can  even  talk  gladly  of  the  ‘blood  of  Christ’  and 
its  saving  power;  only  he  no  longer  thinks  of  fountains, 
or  of  cleansing  by  washing.  He  thinks  of  how  blood  cleans 
to-day.  I  know  a  little  girl  who  has  had  again  and  again 
to  have  her  blood  cleansed  by  transfusion,  whereby  her 
thin  diseased  blood  has  been  replaced  by  vigorous,  healthy 
blood.  And  she  is  coming  back  to  life  and  vigor  again. 
It  is  so  that  men  may  think  to-day  of  the  cleansing  power 
of  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  It  is  the  life  of 
God  that  enters  us  through  Christ  that  cleanses  us,  not 
any  external  washing.*  We  get  the  full  power  of  the 
cross  of  Christ  only  when  we  say,  with  the  apostle,  ‘He 
laid  down  His  life  for  us,  and  we  ought  to  lay  down  our 
lives  for  the  brethren.’  To  enter  into  that  spirit  is  not 
simply  a  result  of  salvation  through  the  atonement  of 
Christ;  it  is  salvation,  it  is  entering  into  life  through  the 
working  of  God’s  atoning  Spirit,  that  eternal  Spirit  through 
which  Jesus  offered  Himself,  and  in  which  God  and  man, 


*  Certainly  not  baptism  in  water,  if  that  is  what  the 
writer  means;  but  what  about  being  “washed  from  our 
sins  in  His  blood,”  with  which  many  other  passages  link 
as  expressing  purification  and  forgiveness  of  sins? 


172 


'Modernism 


God  in  man,  is  ever  offering  Himself  for  the  life  and  salva¬ 
tion  of  the  world.* 

Plainly,  salvation  must  be  a  universal  condition,  real¬ 
ized  in  varying  degrees,  in  its  highest  form  found  among 
men,  but  also  found  in  the  lower  creation  on  the  princi¬ 
ple  of  self-sacrifice,  even  illustrated  in  the  wolf  giving 
itself  for  the  pack,  and  the  pack  for  the  wolf.  And  all 
of  this  through  the  working  of  God’s  eternal  Spirit.  All 
that  we  have  in  the  death  of  Jesus  is  the  supreme  manifes¬ 
tation  of  this  all-pervading  principle  and  salvation;  and  it 
is  supreme  simply  because  the  life  of  Jesus  is  considered 
the  highest  ethical  manifestation  of  life.  His  supreme 
example  is  the  highest  presentation  of  principle,  by  the 
activity  of  which  in  the  individual  all  that  is  here  called 
atonement  or  salvation  is  effected. 

These  views  destro}?^  at  once  any  thought  of  God  exer¬ 
cising  holy  government,  or  judgment,  in  relation  to  sin, 
and  of  man’s  responsibility  in  relation  to  Him  in  view  of 
it.  I  suppose  it  is  admitted  that  sin’s  activity  produces 
present  sorrov/ful  fruits,  both  for  the  individual  and  the 
race,  but  this  is  as  far  as  the  consequences  go,  and  all  is 
because  through  ignorance  the  process  of  evolution  is 
resisted,  this  resistance  being  supremely  expressed  in  cru¬ 
cifying  Christ — “the  sacrifice  of  the  fittest,”  type  of  all 
self-sacrifice,  it  would  seem,  whether  that  be  of  the  mother 
for  her  child,  or  the  wolf  for  the  pack.  But  death,  this 
sacrifice  of  the  fittest,  comes  to  those  ignorant  and  sinful 
individuals  who  foolishly  resist  the  evolutionary  process. 


*  These  extracts  are  from  an  article  in  the  London 
Expositor  of  April,  ’23,  entitled,  “An  evolutionist  at  Cal¬ 
vary,*  by  the  Rev.  W.  P.  Merrill,  D.  D.,  of  New  York. 


The  Death  of  Jesus 


173 


as  it  does  to  those  of  nobler  sort  who  do  not  resist  that 
ever  forward  movement,  but  lay  down  their  lives  that 
somehow  their  blood  may  be  the  seed  of  life  to  the  race, 
in  whom,  I  suppose,  it  would  be  said  the  sacrifice  of  the 
fittest  is  realized.  But  the  death  of  those  sinful  resisters 
can  hardly  have  this  character.  Does  it  come  to  them  so 
that  the  survival  of  the  fittest  may  be  attained?  And  then 
these  fittest  are  sacrificed  in  death  for  the  good  of  others! 
Strange  anomaly!  So  lacking  in  that  simplicity  of  truth 
and  heart-satisfaction  which  fills  the  teaching  of  Scripture. 
And  after  death,  what?  We  are  told  the  Father’s  house 
for  everybody,  in  some  way  or  other.  Plainly,  there  is 
nothing  to  be  saved  from  as  far  as  God  and  His  holy 
government  are  concerned,  even  though  Scripture  does 
speak  of  coming  wrath  and  everlasting  punishment.  Such 
notions  are  crude,  barbarous.  There  is  nothing  to  be  saved 
for,  since  all  will  reach  the  Father’s  house,  and  that  surely 
will  be  a  safe  place  to  be  in,  even  allowing  that  some  may 
be  more  favored  than  others  for  various  reasons.  Then  the 
matter  is  reduced  to  the  question  of  how  to  live  here,  and 
salvation  consists  in  living  as  nobly  as  you  can,  in  being 
as  highly  developed  as  possible,  in  doing  the  most  you  can 
for  the  good  of  the  race.  For  all  of  this  the  life  of  Jesus 
is  said  to  express  God’s  ideal.  Then  at  the  end,  always 
hoping  that  is  a  long  way  off,  you  die,  and  lo!  you  have 
accomplished  a  sacrifice  having  all  the  characteristic  fea¬ 
tures  of  the  death  of  Jesus — “the  sacrifice  of  the  fittest,” 
you  have  proved  yourself  one  of  the  fittest,  you  have  been 
a  saviour  in  the  world,  and  saved  yourself,  not  from  any¬ 
thing  like  hell,  or  for  anything  like  heaven,  but  while 
you  were  here.  And  then,  what?  Another  sphere  of  life, 
and  the  continuation  of  the  evolutionary  process,  and  an- 


174 


Modernism 


other  death  of  sacrifice?  Is  that  what  Jesus  is  going 
through  and  going  on  to?  Why  not,  since  this  is  the 
central  principle  of  God’s  working  in  the  development  of 
life  in  the  universe?  And  who  can  think  of  it  as  fully 
developed  here?  All  this  is  jargon. 

This  whole  teaching  breaks  down  the  sense  of  moral 
responsibility  to  God  as  both  Creator  and  moral  Gover¬ 
nor,  and  with  this  gone  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  think 
of  any  long  continued  sense  of  it  between  man  and  man. 
The  evidence  of  this  result  from  the  wide  acceptance  of 
religio-evolutionary  teaching  grows  stronger  with  every 
passing  week.  It  is  godless  and  materialistic.  There  is 
the  vain  effort  to  maintain  a  form  of  godliness  by  using 
familiar  theological  phrases  and  high-sounding  sentiments, 
but  that  which  alone  can  give  power  is  denied,  utterly  re 
jected  by  these  vain  philosophers. 

As  evolution  in  reference  to  creation  removes  God  from 
it  so  remotely  that  any  real  link  is  impossible,  except  it 
be  that  which  is  expressed  in  physical  laws;  so  in  its  reli¬ 
gious  aspect  it  removes  God  to  such  a  distance  that  He 
cannot  be  considered  as  having  any  moral  link  with  man’s 
life  and  destiny,  nor  man  to  have  any  responsible  relation 
to  Him.  Man  is  thus  left  to  the  caprice  of  his  own  reason, 
and  to  whatever  future  the  evolutionary  process  may  de¬ 
velop  for  him — certainly  an  unknown  quantity. 

The  issue  raised  by  these  views  is  threefold: 

1.  The  true  nature  of  sin  and  death. 

2.  The  true  meaning  of  salvation. 

3.  The  true  relation  of  the  death  of  Jesus  to  both  of 
the  former  problems. 


The  Death  of  Jesus 

I. 


175 


One  passage  of  Scripture  suggests,  at  least  by  implica 
tion,  these  three  vital  features  of  the  truth: 

“The  wages  of  sin  is  death;  but 
The  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life 
In  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.” 

Death  is  an  infliction  from  God.  It  is  in  the  nature  of 
judgment.  It  is  because  of  sin.  Scripture  is  transparently 
clear  upon  these  points,  and  consistent  throughout. 
“Through  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death 
through  sin,  and  so  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that 
all  sinned.”  Through  the  fallen  first  man,  Adam,  sin  was 
introduced,  and  death  comes  in  to  reign  according  to  God’s 
sentence — the  distinctive  mark  of  the  changed  relation 
between  God  and  His  creature.  Although  we  are  not  to 
construe  the  sentence  pronounced  in  the  Garden  of  Eden 
to  mean  the  final  form  of  God’s  judgment  such  as  the 
“second  death,”  it  is  a  solemn  witness  to  a  great  change, 
as  well  as  a  constant  admonition  to  every  soul  that  a  great 
controversy  between  God  and  men  requires  settlement. 
Unless  this  was  so,  why  should  He  who  had  found  plea¬ 
sure  in  man  as  come  from  His  hand  richly  endowed  with 
every  creature  blessing,  now  turn  him  to  destruction,  that 
is,  remove  him  as  not  fit  to  abide  in  the  place  of  re¬ 
sponsibility  and  relationship  to  which  he  properly  belongs. 
Further,  it  is  the  abiding  lesson  of  his  own  utter  help¬ 
lessness,  his  lack  of  real  righteousness,  for  all  are  subject 
to  it.  “In  Adam  all  die.”  “There  is  no  difference,  for  all 
have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  God’s  glory.”  Sin,  there¬ 
fore,  is  not  merely  that  which  is  determined  by  human 
standards  or  social  expediency;  its  nature  is  determined 


176 


Modernism 


by  God’s  perfect  standard  and  holy  claims.  It  is  a  breach 
of  His  order  for  His  creatures,  and  therefore  against  Him, 
though  it  be  also  against  man.  Thus  David  exclaims, 
“Against  Thee,  Thee  only,  have  I  sinned.”  In  Cain’s 
case  the  crime  is  against  his  brother  and  family,  but  life 
belongs  alone  by  right  unto  God,  man  having  forfeited  it, 
and  so  in  the  great  typical  system  of  Israel  God  claims 
the  blood  of  the  sacrifices,  for  “the  life  is  in  the  blood.” 
God,  then,  comes  in  to  deal  with  Cain  about  his  sin,  for 
it  directly  affected  his  position  and  relation  toward  Him. 
It  also  furnishes  the  opportunity  for  God  to  point  out  the 
way  the  sinner  must  approach  Him — a  sin-offering  was 
required.  It  was  at  hand,  even  at  the  door,  and  Abel’s 
accepted  offering  proclaimed  the  manner  of  it.  Death  is 
not  only  a  consequence  of  sin,  but  here  it  is  presented  as 
a  fundamental  necessity  for  God’s  acceptance  of  the  sin¬ 
ner  who  approaches  Him. 

It  is  not  without  importance  to  note  the  use  of  sacrifice 
in  the  religious  cults  of  men  from  the  very  beginning,  for  it 
is  universal,  though  abominably  perverted.  This  is  the 
more  remarkable  since  it  is  against  nature,  which  finds  its 
way  illustrated  in  that  of  Cain,  and  reason  itself  might 
well  question  how  an  innocent  animal  victim  could  pos¬ 
sibly  meet  the  question  of  man’s  sinfulness  and  atone  for 
his  guilt.  This  being  so,  its  prevalence  argues  for  its  di¬ 
vine  institution,  even  as  Genesis  witnesses,  while  it  also 
evidences  a  universal  conviction  as  to  the  fundamental 
need  for  favorable  relations  with  God.  Only  when  these 
shadows  are  linked  with  the  substance  are  they  seen  in  a 
right  light,  and  then  they  are  found  to  be  always  pointing 
to  the  suffering  yet  conquering  Seed  of  the  woman,  whose 
atoning  death  alone  could  meet  all  the  requirements  of 


The  Death  of  Jesus 


177 


the  case  at  the  appointed  time.  This  alone  makes  it  pos¬ 
sible  to  understand  how  God  could  see  in  Abel’s  bleeding 
lamb  a  value  which  made  it  possible  for  Him  to  pro¬ 
nounce  the  offerer  righteous,  thus  bearing  testimony  to 
the  meaning  for  Him  of  his  gifts. 

This  had  already  found  illustration  in  God’s  dealings 
with  His  fallen  creatures;  for  while  He  affirms  the  sen¬ 
tence  of  death  in  relation  to  their  place  and  portion  in 
creation,  it  is  surely  by  death  that  He  obtains  the  coats 
of  skin  to  clothe  the  guilty.  Thus,  too,  we  may  learn 
what  all  Scripture  witnesses  to,  that  man’s  efforts  do  not 
avail  before  God  to  meet  his  sinful  condition — ^whether 
this  be  articles  of  his  own  manufacture,  or  as  with  Cain 
the  fruit  brought  forth  from  a  cursed  earth  bedewed  with 
the  sinful  sweat  of  his  own  brow.  It  must  be  what  God 
does,  thereby  providing  a  perfect  answer  to  the  existing 
need.  It  is  God’s  work,  entirely  apart  from  man,  and 
through  other  instrumentality.  This  is  made  plain  by  the 
first  promise,  the  announcement  of  the  One  who  is  to  be 
victorious  over  all  the  dreadful  consequences  of  the  fall. 
He  is  spoken  of  as  the  woman’s  Seed.  This  plainly  inti¬ 
mates  a  new  and  mysterious  beginning  in  which  the  vic¬ 
tory  of  grace  over  sin  is  realized,  and  that  not  through  the 
restoration  of  the  first  man  to  the  place  from  whence  he 
had  fallen,  but  by  the  exercise  of  divine  power  bringing 
forth  under  its  immediate  and  special  activity  through  the 
weaker  vessel,  woman,  the  Second  Man,  who  though 
bruised  shall  gloriously  conquer.  Hope  is  not  then  found 
in  Adam  or  his  progeny,  but  in  Another  who  shall  come 
in  a  special  way,  yet  born  of  woman.  He  shall  suffer,  yet 
overcome.  God  points  to  Him,  and  so  would  have  them 
in  their  hopeless,  helpless  state  of  ruin  put  their  faith  in 
the  promised  Deliverer. 


178 


Modernism 


We  see  how  the  divine  purpose  begins  to  unfold  at  the 
very  beginning.  God  marks  sin  as  that  which  directly 
affects  relationship  with  Him.  Its  true  nature  is  that  of 
rebellion  to  His  revealed  will.  “Sin  is  lawlessness.”  It 
brings  alienation.  We  are  alienated  from  God  by  wicked 
works.  We  fall  short  of  His  glory,  and  therefore  can¬ 
not  be  acceptable  to  Him.  Death  is  that  which  marks 
this  changed  relation  between  God  and  man,  who  origin¬ 
ally  had  come  perfect  and  good  from  His  hand.  What 
He  thinks  of  it  as  connected  with  sin,  and  consequently 
bringing  separation  from  His  holy  presence,  is  most  em¬ 
phatically  taught  us  in  the  regulations  given  by  Moses 
concerning  it.  It  always  produced  uncleanness  and  de¬ 
filement,  even  though  the  connection  with  it  might  seem 
quite  remote,  and  purely  accidental.  Thus  He  presses  upon 
us  its  solemn  lesson,  for  these  things  were  written  afore¬ 
time  for  our  learning,  and  in  those  very  ordinances  we 
also  see  that  only  sacrifice  can  effect  cleansing.  In  the 
second  place.  He  reveals  the  Coming  One  to  whom  every 
soul  must  look  for  salvation.  Then  He  institutes  sacri¬ 
fice,  first  intimated  in  the  coats  of  skin,  plainly  confirmed 
in  His  acceptance  of  Abel’s  lamb  and  the  refusal  of  Cain’s 
naturalistic,  self-effort  offering,  in  this  declaring  that  sal¬ 
vation  is  not  of  works  lest  any  man  should  boast,  but  that 
it  is  found  alone  through  grace  in  Christ  and  by  faith  in 
Him.  This  indicated  the  only  way  of  blessing  and  rela¬ 
tionship  with  God.  All  pointed  to  Christ  and  Calvary,  and 
these  fundamental  features  of  God’s  purpose  received  con¬ 
stantly  clearer  annunciation  as  the  centuries  passed  by. 
God  speaking  to  the  fathers  in  the  prophets  in  divers  por¬ 
tions  and  divers  manners,  until  the  full  and  glorious  ac¬ 
complishment  came  through  the  incarnation  and  death  of 


The  Death  of  Jesus 


179 


the  Lord  Jesus.  In  this  early  history  sin,  death,  salva¬ 
tion,  and  the  only  Saviour,  all  receive  their  illustration. 
Their  meaning  thus  set  before  man,  agrees  perfectly  with 
the  final  God-breathed  messages  of  Holy  Writ  which 
came  at  least  4000  years  later. 

II. 

Now  without  question  both  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus 
are  presented  to  us  as  supreme  examples.  The  following 
scriptures  plainly  teach  it:  Matt.  16:  21-26;  Luke  9:  22- 
24;  John  12:  24-26;  Heb.  12:  1-4.  But  this  is  only  half 
of  the  truth,  in  fact  the  lesser  half,  which  can  only  be 
realized  in  the  individual  and  his  experience  on  the  basis 
of  the  truth  of  the  greater  half  and  its  acceptance  by 
faith,  so  that  the  divine  work  of  new  birth  is  wrought  by 
the  Spirit  through  the  written  Word  of  God  and  individ¬ 
ual  faith  in  it.  All  of  this  in  their  essential  meaning  these 
religious  evolutionists  reject  and  deny,  for  there  can  be 
no  such  need  according  to  their  view  of  the  matter.  Man’s 
need  is  not  new  creation — that  is  a  work  of  God  as  imme¬ 
diate,  direct  and  special  as  that  of  the  original  creation  of 
man,  so  that  the  individual  who  is  a  subject  of  it  begins 
to  live  in  the  power  and  blessing  of  new  life,  eternal  life, 
and  as  identified  with  a  new  sphere  and  new  relationships 
all  fully  revealed  in  the  New  Testament;  but  man’s  need 
is  thought  to  be  a  transfusion  of  the  best  elements  found 
in  the  noblest  of  men  into  the  weak  and  failing  of  their 
fellows. 

We  read  that  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh, 
that  is,  morally.  They  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please 
God,  for  it  is  true  of  all,  that  in  their  flesh  dwelleth  no 
good  thing.  The  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against  God. 


180 


Modernism 


The  works  of  the  flesh  are  manifest,  and  out  of  the  heart 
all  manner  of  evil  proceeds.  It  is  desperately  wicked,  who 
can  know  it?  Its  imagination  is  evil  from  man’s  youth, 
and  the  thoughts  of  man  are  evil  continually.  “There  is 
none  righteous,  no,  not  one  .  .  .  There  is  none  that  doeth 
good,  no,  not  so  much  as  one.”  This  unvarying  testi¬ 
mony  of  Scripture  plainly  intimates  a  virus  so  great,  a 
corruption  so  irresistible,  and  irremediable,  that  only  the 
bringing  in  of  what  is  absolutely  and  essentially  new, 
coming  from  a  source  entirely  apart  from  man,  even  from 
God  Himself,  can  possibly  meet  the  case.  This  we  have 
in  the  teaching  of  new  birth,  of  new  creation,  and  the 
gift  of  a  life  never  possessed  before.  This  in  its  very 
nature,  and  as  come  from  such  a  Source,  is  not  only  new, 
but  different,  and  identical  with  the  nature  and  life  of  Jesus. 
It  is  moral  and  spiritual  regeneration.  It  begins,  practically 
speaking,  v/ith  the  exercise  of  faith  in  the  gospel  of  God 
concerning  His  Son,  and  from  this  continues  a  moral  and 
spiritual  growth,  as  varying  in  degree  and  character  in 
those  who  are  the  subjects  of  it  as  is  the  variety  to  be 
observed  among  men  in  natural  and  physical  development. 
The  end,  however,  is  assured.  It  is  eternal  life  (in  the 
perfect  fulness  that  that  implies)  in  the  immediate  pres¬ 
ence  of  God,  its  Giver  and  Source  to  all  who  will  accept 
it  on  the  principle  of  faith  in  the  atoning  death  of  the 
Lord  Jesus;  it  being  both  substitutionary  and  propitiatory 
in  relation  to  sin  and  its  judgment. 

The  character  which  belongs  to  man,  both  in  regard  to 
his  nature  and  practice,  is  distinctly  the  cause  of  his 
alienation  from  God,  as  well  as  his  own  self-destruction. 
Sin  is  against  God.  He  must  deal  both  with  the  nature 
and  its  fruits.  Sin  in  the  flesh,  the  nature.  He  condemns 


The  Death  of  Jesus 


181 


and  ultimately  removes.  Sins,  the  fruits  of  the  nature, 
are  dealt  with  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  who  gave  Himself 
for  our  sins;  who  bore  our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the 
tree;  on  whom  Jehovah  laid  our  iniquity;  who  was  de 
livered  for  our  offences;  by  whose  stripes  we  are  healed; 
who  being  the  Just  One  suffered  for  us  the  unjust;  who 
is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins;  who  offered  one  sacrifice 
for  sins,  by  which  He  made  purification,  and  then  sat 
down  upon  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high;  who 
died  for  our  sjns  according  to  the  scriptures.  In  Him 
alone  we  have  redemption  through  His  blood,  even  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  His  precious  blood  cleanses  us  from  ail 
sin.  In  His  cross  Scripture  teaches  us  to  see  God’s  holy  judg¬ 
ment  of  our  old  man  in  all  that  he  is  and  all  that  belongs 
to  him,  the  flesh,  its  lusts,  and  the  world  in  which  it  has 
its  place.  He  is  our  Deliverer  from  coming  wrath,  and  our 
coming  Saviour  who  will  perfect  the  work  of  salvation, 
presenting  us  faultless  in  the  presence  of  God’s  glory,  be¬ 
fore  whom  according  to  His  eternal  purpose  we  shall  ever 
be  in  love,  holy  and  without  blame.  Through  the  work 
of  redemption  we  are  made  joint-heirs  with  Him,  so  that 
in  Him  we  have  our  inheritance,  who  is  the  appointed  Heir 
of  all  things;  in  whose  final  triumph  we  shall  share  as  be¬ 
ing  under  His  headship  in  new  creation,  being  born  of 
God,  His  children  through  faith  in  the  Person  and  work 
of  Christ,  and  destined  to  be  perfectly  conformed  in  res- 
urection  to  the  image  of  His  Son  who  is  the  firstborn 
among  many  brethren,  the  Captain  of  salvation,  the 
Leader  of  many  sons  to  glory,  the  Author  and  Finisher 
of  faith.  Lord  of  lords  and  King  of  kings,  only  Saviour, 
the  Eternal  Son  of  God,  perfect  Man  forevermore,  yet  God 
over  all  blessed  forever.  Such  is  a  glimpse  of  the  mean- 


182 


Modernism 


ing  of  God’s  great  salvation,  and  of  the  relation  to  it  of 
His  great  Saviour,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

III. 

The  meaning  of  the  death  of  Jesus  is  evident.  “Except 
a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth 
by  itself  alone” — thus  would  it  have  been  with  Him  in  the 
matchless  perfection  of  His  humanity  and  holy  life.  His 
life  could  not  save,  blessed  and  holy  and  glorious  in  moral 
beauty  though  it  be,  shining  as  it  does,  and  will,  for  all 
eternity  in  its  own  peerless  lustre.  Yet  while  it  could  not 
save  it  is  that  which  in  its  essential  character  is  made  the 
life  of  the  saved.  Salvation  introduces  to  it,  but  it  is  not 
salvation.  “But  if  it  dlCj  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit” — 
thus  alone  are  we  given  entrance  into  His  life.  He  died 
as  meeting  the  whole  issue  raised  by  sin,  going  into  death 
which  it  had  brought,  bearing  the  judgment  it  deserved, 
being  forsaken  of  God,  perfectly  glorifying  Him  in  so  do¬ 
ing  in  the  very  scene  where  sin  had  dishonored  Him,  and  at 
the  same  time  opening  up  the  way  of  salvation  and  life  to 
poor  sinners,  who  being  ungodly  and  without  strength  have 
no  hope  or  resource,  except  in  what  God  Himself  provides. 
Kow  the  grace  which  brings  salvation  has  appeared  to  all 
men — in  Christ,  grace  and  truth  subsist  in  and  by  Him. 

He  laid  down  His  life,  that  He  might  take  it  again — 
take  it  in  the  glory  of  resurrection,  the  necessary  com¬ 
plement  to  His  death,  for  if  He  who  died  for  our  sins  be 
not  raised  from  among  the  dead,  our  faith  is  vain,  we  are 
yet  in  our  sins.  But  now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead, 
and  lives  to  die  no  more,  so  that  now  it  can  be  said  we  are 
saved  in  the  power  of  His  life.  But  I  must  not  anticipate, 
for  resurrection  is  our  next  theme. 


The  Death  of  Jesus 


183 


The  death  of  Jesus  presents  as  profound  a  mystery  to 
the  human  mind  as  does  the  Incarnation.  We  still  stand 
in  the  presence  of  the  Cross,  smiting  our  breasts,  with 
bowed  heads,  and  awe-stricken  hearts,  hearing  that  awful 
cry  of  forsaken  sorrow  which  is  wrung  from  the  heart  of 
the  patient,  holy,  and  blessed  Sufferer.  The  veil  of  the 
temple  is  rent,  the  life’s  blood  flows  forth,  the  darkness 
rolls  away,  and  we  hear  it  said  again,  “Without  the  shed¬ 
ding  of  blood  is  no  remission  ...  it  is  the  blood  that 
maketh  atonement  for  the  soul,” — “It  is  finished.”  He 
has  “made  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  people.” 

“Once  at  the  consummation  of  the  ages  hath  He  been 
manifested  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself. 
And  in  as  much  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die, 
and  after  this  cometh  judgment;  so  Christ  also  having 
been  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  shall  appear  a 
second  time,  apart  from  sin,  to  them  that  wait  for  Him, 
unto  salvation”  (Heb.  9:  26-28). 

“To  Him  who  loves  us,  and  has  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  His  blood,  and  made  us  a  kingdom,  priests  to  His  God 
and  Father;  to  Him  be  the  glory  and  the  might  to  the 
ages  of  ages.  Amen”  (Rev.  1:  5,6). 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


The  resurrection  of  Jesus — was  it  a  fact  or  an  ethical 
miracle?”  What  relation  does  it  bear  to  the 
truth  of  Christianity? 

HE  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  either  the  most  stu¬ 


pendous  fact  of  all  history,  or  it  is  the  greatest 


fraud  ever  perpetrated  and  foisted  upon  mankind. 
Certainly,  it  has  far  exceeded  even  the  historico-critico- 
evolutionary  fraud  in  its  influence  upon  men’s  minds,  its 
power  to  direct  their  activities,  and  its  effective  formation 
of  their  religious  concepts.  It  was  universally  established 
in  an  extremely  short  time,  and  maintained  and  increased 
through  the  centuries  as  the  race  extended  and  developed, 
while  the  other  has  been  in  the  process  of  development 
and  extension  for  several  centuries. 

This  is  an  amazing  phenomenon!  Especially  when  we 
are  told  it  came  to  birth  through  the  subjective  visions  of 
a  few  humble,  illiterate  Galileans,  who  in  the  strength  of 
such  illusions  went  forth  conquering  and  to  conquer  in 
days  of  world-wisdom,  art,  philosophy,  criticism,  and 
religion,  at  which  the  twentieth  century  still  wonders; 
who  did  this  though  enduring  the  loss  of  all  that  men 
naturally  count  dear  and  strive  for,  suffering  greatly, 
persecuted  mightily,  they  were  accounted  as  sheep  for  the 
slaughter  and  as  the  off-scouring  of  the  world,  imprisoned, 
hated,  hounded,  and  finally  martyred.  [Mighty,  powerful, 
and  seemingly  real  “visions”  they  must  have  been,  to  pro¬ 
duce  results  so  astounding,  such  as  have  not  been  known 
before  or  since!  And  they  were  united  in  this  remarka- 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  185 

ble  testimony  and  service.  They  formed  a  group  of  men 
who  were  not  likely  to  suffer  from  emotionailism,  or  be 
subject  to  hallucinations;  they  were  rather  prosaic,  in  fact, 
with  little  spiritual  perception,  and  subject  to  rivalries  and 
misunderstandings  among  themselves.  Here  we  find  them 
welded  together  in  consistent  and  prevailing  witness  to  the 
great  fact  of  the  resurrection.  Furthermore,  what  adds 
to  the  wonder  of  it  is  the  accompaniment  of  this  witness 
by  the  loftiest  moral  and  spiritual  teaching  the  world  has 
been  ever  given,  as  all  admit.  Being  such  as  they  were, 
this  emphasizes  the  fact  that  both  the  source  and  power 
producing  these  results  were  apart  from  and  above  any 
merely  natural  order,  though  mightily  working  in  and 
through  them.  They  were  neither  knaves,  nor  fools. 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus,  we  are  told,  was  “the  cul¬ 
mination  of  His  ethical  miracles,  wrought  by  the  mighty 
power  of  a  perfect  human  personality  .  .  .  The  power  of 
this  personality  emptied  the  tomb  and  made  intercourse 
with  His  disciples  possible.”  It  was  not  a  wondrous  act 
of  power,  the  greatest  of  the  many  wonders  of  power 
which  are  recorded  of  Him,  for  the  Modernist  does  not 
believe  He  wrought  such  signs  and  wonders — “most  of  His 
recorded  miracles  are  ethical  ones*  They  were  wrought 
by  His  wondrous,  sinless  personality.”  This  simply  means 
that  His  life  and  teaching  (we  are  not  to  think  of  miracles 
as  we  have  been  accustomed  to  think  of  them,  and  as  the 
Gospels  record  them)  wrought  with  such  unusual  power 
upon  the  disciples  that  there  was  produced  such  an  effect 
upon  their  minds,  so  profoundly  ethical  was  the  power 
exerted,  that  they  could  only  set  forth  the  result  of  the 
mental  condition  thus  produced  by  presenting  the  idea  of 
His  resurrection  (there  being  no  question  of  His  actual 


186 


Modernism 


death)  in  literal  bodily  manifestation.  This  was  done  in 
such  language,  with  much  detail  as  to  attendant  circum¬ 
stances,  that  millions  of  their  poor  fellow-creatures  have 
since  their  day  believed,  and  still  do,  that  the  Man  Christ 
Jesus  actually  rose  from  among  the  dead  in  a  body  of 
“  flesh  and  bones.’^  The  greatest  ethical  miracle  in¬ 
deed  ( ? ! ) .  Thus  they  sought  to  emphasize  the  abiding 
value  and  power  of  His  life,  teaching,  and  personality. 

The  resurrection  is  then  reduced  to  a  product  of  their 
mental  condition,  the  result  of  their  circumstances  and 
intense  religious  imagination,  again  due  to  “the  mighty 
power  of  a  perfect  human  personality”  whose  death,  “the 
sacrifice  of  the  fittest,”  they  had  witnessed.  This  in  the 
face  of  the  testimony  to  their  utterly  depressed,  hopeless, 
and  fearful  state  of  mind  induced  by  that  tragic  event,  and 
their  unbelief  in  His  oft-reiterated  announcement  of  res¬ 
urrection  from  among  the  dead.  One  wonders  why  the 
mighty  power  of  the  Lord’s  perfect  human  personality.  His 
life  and  teaching,  did  not  preserve  them  from  falling  into 
such  a  pitiful  condition,  since  in  a  few  days  after  the 
crucifixion  it  wrought  so  wondrously  as  to  lead  them  to 
believe  that  the  tomb  was  empty,  that  they  had  actually 
seen  and  conversed  with  the  Lord,  even  eaten  a  meal  with 
Him,  so  that  in  the  strength  of  these  “subjective  visions,” 
in  which  all  seemed  so  objective  and  real,  they  became 
completely  revolutionized,  and  are  found  continually  in 
the  temple  praising  and  blessing  God.  To  such  vain  ima¬ 
ginings  are  those  great  minds  of  the  historico-critical  school 
reduced  because,  as  one  of  its  lauded  leaders  states,  “We 
find  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus — as  is  not  surprising  in 
view  of  its  supernatural  character — is  in  very  many  quar¬ 
ters  and  with  growing  distinctness  characterised  as  un- 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  187 

historical,  and  that  not  merely  when  it  is  conceived  of  as 
having  been  a  revivification  of  the  dead  body  of  Jesus,  but 
also  when  it  is  defended  in  some  spiritualistic  form.”* 
This  Modernist  view  of  the  resurrection  undermines  the 
veracity  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  of  the  Gospels,  the  apostolic 
testimony,  including  that  of  Paul;  in  fact  it  must  ulti¬ 
mately  affect  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
Old  cannot  be  exempt. 

“The  story  of  the  resurrection  is  as  much  interwoven 
with  the  texture  of  the  entire  Scripture  as  it  is  with  the 
moral  character  of  Jesus,  so  that,  to  adopt  the  language 
of  Renan,  to  tear  it  from  the  Book  would  be  to  rend  the 
Bible  to  its  foundations.  Hence  we  are  bound  to  consider 
the  resurrection  and  revelation  as  standing  or  falling  to* 


*  Paul  W.  Schmiedel,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  New  Testa¬ 
ment  Exegesis,  Zurich,  in  the  Encyclopedia  Biblica.  He 
deals  at  length  with  the  Gospel  narratives  of  the  resur¬ 
rection,  saying  they  “exhibit  contradictions  of  the  most 
glaring  kind,”  and  considers  that  they  abound  in  violent 
discrepancies,  that  they  “are  at  irreconcilable  variance 
with  each  other.”  He  then  spends  much  time  over  1  Cor. 
15,  chiefly  to  show  how  it  discredits  certain  details  of  the 
Gospels.  One  wonders  why  such  men  wish  to  be,  or  re¬ 
main,  professors  of  exegesis  of  such  a  contradictory  and 
questionable  collection  of  documents  as  compose  the  New 
Testament.  I  suppose  their  prodigious  labors  find  reward 
in  turning,  as  they  imagine,  fact  into  myth,  truth  into 
fiction,  thus  freeing  their  fellow-mortals  from  bondage  to 
so  much  “delusion,”  all  of  which  makes  one  thankful  not 
to  be  afflicted  with  the  condition  producing  such  miasma. 
To  answer  the  variety  of  objections  would  carry  us  far 
beyond  present  limits.  It  has  been  done  by  others  in  a 
way  to  fully  satisfy  any  unprejudiced  mind.  A  book  by 
the  late  Dr.  James  H.  Brookes,  “Did  Jesus  Rise?”  will  be 
found  helpful.  It  may  be  obtained  from  Loizeaux  Bros. 


188 


Modernism 


gether.  If  the  former  can  be  established  as  an  historical 
fact,  the  supernatural  origin  of  the  latter  is  clearly  vindi¬ 
cated;  and  if  the  latter  can  be  proved  the  former  cannot 
be  doubted/’* 

I. 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus  at  once  confirms  the  truth  of 
His  absolute  Deity  and  perfect  humanity.  It  is  His  own 
omnipotent  power  which  effected  it,  and  on  the  other  hand 
if  He  had  not  been  truly  man — ^body,  soul  and  spirit — 
what  would  there  have  been  to  raise  from  among  the 
dead,  thus  reuniting  that  which  became  separated  by  pass¬ 
ing  through  death.  He  said,  ^‘Destroy  this  temple — He 
spake  of  the  temple  of  His  body — cmd  in  three  days  1 
will  raise  it  up.’^  Speaking  of  His  life.  He  said,  ^7  have 
power  to  lay  it  down,  and  1  have  power  to  take  it  again. 
God  the  Father  (Gal.  1:1;  Heb.  13:  20)  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  (1  Pet.  3:  18)  are  also  engaged  in  this  mighty  act 
of  power,  so  that  we  have  Trinitarian  unity  of  action 
displayed  in  the  resurrection.  It  witnesses  to  the  truth 
of  His  Godhead,  while  it  also  declares  Him  as  God’s  Holy 
One  who  could  not  see  corruption,  whose  body,  though 
going  into  the  place  of  corruption,  comes  forth  untouched 
by  that  which  every  other  man’s  body  would  suffer  in  the 
tomb,  proving  His  perfection.  He  is  the  untainted,  sinless 
Son  of  Man. 

According  to  Paul  there  were  at  least  five  hundred  wit¬ 
nesses  of  the  resurrection,  many  living  at  the  time  he 
wrote,  so  that  if  he  was  not  correct  or  truthful  in  his 
account  -there  would  doubtless  be  some  record  extant  of 
controversy  over  a  matter  of  such  vital  importance,  while 


*  Dr.  J.  H.  Brookes. 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  189 

still  further  he  asserts  that  he  was  only  writing  to  them 
what  already  had  been  the  constant  subject  of  his  oral 
ministry,  along  with  the  other  apostles,  as  confirmed  in 
the  Acts.  Make  the  resurrection  a  result  of  the  subjec¬ 
tive  visions  of  a  few  men,  thus  denying  its  literality,  and 
this  at  one  blow  destroys  the  true  meaning  of  the  death 
of  Jesus.  The  truth  of  His  essential  Deity,  His  perfect, 
unique  humanity  and  the  virgin  birth,  indeed  His  charac¬ 
ter,  teaching,  and  life  are  all  impugned.  Every  vital  truth 
concerning  the  Person  and  work  of  Christ  in  life  or  death, 
the  purposes  of  God,  His  blessings,  and  every  hope  for 
the  individual  and  the  world,  demand  the  literal  bodily 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  It  is  into  His  hands  as  Son  of 
Man  that  all  things  have  been  delivered  (Heb.  2;  John  3: 
35;  5:  20-30;  Matt.  11:  27).  If  the  resurrection  did  not 
take  place  all  is  in  vain.  He  is  proved  to  be  no  more 
than  any  other  man  of  whom  death  is  the  portion,  and 
that  because  of  sin.  It  means  that  He  was  not  simply 
capable  of  dying,  but  subject  to  death.  With  this  the 
whole  structure  of  Christianity,  more,  of  all  divine  reve¬ 
lation,  falls  to  the  ground.  Teaching  which  has  such  a 
result  plainly  comes  from  only  one  source;  its  origin  and 
development  is  through  the  machination  of  him  who  “was 
a  murderer  from  the  beginning,  and  has  not  stood  in  the 
truth’’  (John  8:  44). 

II. 

The  credibility  and  conclusiveness  of  the  testimony  to 
the  resurrection  needs  only  brief  consideration  for  any 
unprejudiced  mind.  For  those  who  accept  the  Bible  as 
the  revealed  mind  of  God  there  can  be  no  question  in  this 
matter,  even  though  the  various  accounts  appear  to  differ. 


190 


Modernism 


“The  narratives  of  the  resurrection,  full  of  diversity  in 
details  as  they  are,  and  raising  repeated  puzzling  questions 
of  order  and  arrangement,  yet  not  only  bear  consentient 
testimony  to  all  the  main  facts,  but  fit  into  one  another 
so  as  to  create  a  consistent  narrative — which  has  moreover 
the  support  of  the  contemporary  testimony  of  Paul.  The 
persistent  attempt  to  explain  away  the  facts  so  witnessed, 
or  to  substitute  for  the  account  which  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  writers  give  of  them  some  more  plausible  explana¬ 
tion,  as  the  naturalistic  mind  estimates  plausibility,  are  all 
wrecked  on  the  directness,  precision,  and  copiousness  of  the 
testimony;  and  on  the  great  effects  which  have  flowed 
from  this  fact  in  the  revolution  wrought  in  the  minds  and 
lives  of  the  apostles  themselves,  and  in  the  revolution 
wrought  through  their  preaching  of  the  resurrection  in 
the  life  and  history  of  the  world  .  .  .  ^Unique  spiritual 
effects,’  it  has  been  remarked  with  great  reasonableness, 
^require  a  unique  spiritual  cause;  and  we  shall  never  un¬ 
derstand  the  full  significance  of  the  cause,  if  we  begin  by 
denying  or  minimizing  its  uniqueness.’  ”* 

As  to  the  historical  sequence  of  the  written  records  of 
the  New  Testament  concerning  the  resurrection,  the  gen¬ 
erally  accepted  order  is  that  Paul  comes  first,  in  1  Cor.  15, 
then  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  Acts  a  few  years  later, 
John  coming  in  toward  the  close  of  the  first  century. 
Even  the  critics  cannot  raise  any  worth-while  question 
as  to  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  those  epistles  of 
Paul  which  most  strongly  witness  to  the  resurrection. 
This  alone  should  make  us  feel  we  are  on  safe  ground, 
but  when  we  consider  the  Gospels  and  Acts  we  find  all 
these  witnesses  agree  as  to  the  main  facts,  though  each 
may  give  certain  details  not  mentioned  by  the  others — 


*  Benjamin  B.  Warfield,  D.  P.,  LL.  D. 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 


191 


the  very  variety  adding  strength  to  their  united  testimony 
instead  of  casting  discredit  upon  it.  Face  the  facts  in  the 
case  as  presented  in  these  documents,  study  the  suitability 
of  the  details  given  by  each  writer  to  his  special  object, 
and  see  their  harmony  in  united  presentation,  and  there 
can  be  no  honest  question  as  to  the  literal  bodily  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

In  these  records  there  is  everything  necessary  to  abso¬ 
lutely  establish  the  actuality  of  the  event.  The  simplicity, 
straightforwardness,  and  unembellished  language  with 
which  this  stupendous  event  is  told  by  these  writers,  is 
in  itself  a  striking  commendation  of  their  record.  In  this 
it  bears  the  Divine  characteristic  which  is  stamp)ed  on  all 
Scripture,  and  nowhere  is  it  more  conspicuous  than  when 
the  subject  is  of  the  greatest  magnitude  and  importance. 
As  there  is  only  One  of  whom  it  could  be  said,  “Never 
man  spake  like  this  Man,”  so  there  is  only  one  Book  of 
which  it  can  be  said,  “Never  book  was  written  like  this 
Book.” 

Let  those  who  will  have  it  other  than  literal  resurrection 
explain  what  became  of  our  Lord’s  body,  and  tell  us  what 
relation  to  their  view  the  oft-reiterated  third  day  can 
have,  and  what  Christianity  can  really  mean  to  any  sober- 
thinking  person,  if  we  are  to  accept  Modernistic  interpre¬ 
tation. 

III. 

The  body  of  the  resurrection,  and  the  nature  of  the 
manifestations,  call  for  a  few  remarks.  It  must  be  clear 
that  when  He  had  risen.  His  body  was  no  longer  subject 
to  the  same  material  conditions.  He  came  forth  from  the 
closed  tomb,  as  implied  by  the  account  in  Matthew.  He 


192 


Modernism 


came  out  of  the  linen  clothes,  leaving  them  in  form  and 
place  as  when  He  had  been  laid  in  the  tomb;  this  is  inti¬ 
mated  in  John’s  record  of  Peter’s  visit.  He  passed  through 
closed  doors  (John  20:  26),  and  could  be  present  at 
different  places  widely  separated  at  no  great  interval 
(Luke  24:15,34,36).  Whatever  similarity  there  was 
(John  20:  27-29),  a  manifest  difference  also  existed,  seem¬ 
ing  in  some  cases  to  make  recognition  difficult  (John  20: 
14;  21:  4).  Plainly  the  Lord  rose  in  a  condition  of  life 
different  from  that  out  of  which  He  passed  in  death. 
At  resurrection,  while  retaining  all  that  makes  Him  truly 
man.  He  was  no  longer  in  the  conditions  of  earthly  life. 
He  had  not  changed,  but  the  sphere  and  conditions  of  life 
had  changed  for  Him,  and  the  body  of  the  resurrection 
was  suited  to  this  change,  it  being  the  spiritual  body,  so 
that  He,  the  first-fruits,  is  the  great  and  glorious  type  to 
the  likeness  of  which  all  shall  be  conformed  who  partici¬ 
pate  in  the  resurrection  of  life  (Phil.  3:  21). 

That  His  manifestations  were  not  phantasms,  we  have- 
His  own  assurance  as  He  stands  in  the  midst  of  His 
affrighted  disciples,  who  supposed  they  beheld  a  spirit. 
‘‘He  said  unto  them.  Why  are  ye  troubled?  and  wherefore 
do  reasonings  arise  in  your  heart?  See  My  hands  and 
my  feet,  that  it  is  I  myself:  handle  Me,  and  see;  for  a 
spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  behold  Me  having. 
And  when  He  had  said  this.  He  shewed  them  His  hands 
and  His  feet.  And  while  they  still  disbelieved  for  joy,  and 
wondered.  He  said  unto  them.  Have  ye  here  anything  to 
eat?  And  they  gave  Him  a  piece  of  a  broiled  fish.  And 
He  took  it,  and  did  eat  before  them”  (Luke  24:  38-43, 
R.  V.).  That  He  should  ask  for  and  receive  food  does 
not  imply  a  continued  dependence  in  resurrection  upon 


The  Resukrection  of  Jesus  193 

such  means  of  sustenance,  but,  as  the  connection  shows, 
the  Lord  had  recourse  to  this  action  for  the  purpose  of 
convincing  His  disciples  that  what  they  saw  was  not  a 
phantom.  Peter  uses  this  fact  in  his  testimony  to  the 
resurrection  (Acts  10:  40,  41).  The  fact  of  the  manifest 
difference  made  it  necessary  for  the  Lord  to  demonstrate 
the  reality  and  identity  of  His  risen  body. 

IV. 

Finally,  we  must  trace  the  relation  of  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  to  the  truth  of  Christianity. 

1.  It  is  made  the  keynote  of  apostolic  testimony.  This 
is  shown  by  the  requirements  which  governed  the  selection 
of  a  witness  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas  (Acts  1:  22).  It  is 
prominent  in  the  preaching  of  Peter  and  others  (Acts  2 : 
32;  4:  2,  33;  10:  40).  Likewise,  the  record  given  in  the 
Acts  of  PauFs  preaching  shows  that  he  strongly  empha¬ 
sized  it  (13:  30-37;  17:  18,31;  26:  23).  When  we  con- 

,  sider  the  epistles,  more  than  half  of  them  contain  the 
plainest  declarations  concerning  the  resurrection  of  Jesus; 
and  they  all  present  teaching  which  is  not  intelligent 
apart  from  its  acceptance,  such  as  for  example  the  ascen¬ 
sion,  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  second  ad¬ 
vent,  with  the  results  and  exhortations  founded  upon 
them.  With  all  of  this  the  Apocalypse  very  distinctly  falls 
in  line. 

2.  It  relates  especially  to  the  truth  of  the  Person  of 
Christ,  and  the  place  of  absolute  supremacy  given  to  Him 
as  the  glorified  Man.  It  witnessed  to  His  incorruptibility 
and  absolute  purity  (Acts  2:  23-36;  13:  34-37).  He  is 
marked  out  Son  of  God  in  power  by  the  resurrection  of 
dead  persons  (Rom.  1:  4),  as  the  statement  may  be  more 


194 


Modernism 


properly  taken  to  mean.  Lazarus  and  others  would  be 
examples,  but  His  own  resurrection  cannot  be  excluded, 
for  it  too  was  accomplished  by  His  own  mighty  power. 
This,  then,  affirms  the  fact  of  His  being  the  Son  of  God. 
This  power  of  resurrection  will  be  applied  to  God’s  people, 
bringing  them  into  the  full  meaning  of  being  sons  of  God 
by  fciith  in  Christ  Jesus,  but  in  Rom.  1 :  4  the  point  is 
more  that  of  power  applied  by  Him  to  others. 

Resurrection  proclaims  Him  as  the  universal  Judge 
(Acts  10:  42;  17:  31).  With  this  we  link  the  Lord’s  own 
teaching  in  John  5.  He  proclaims  that  all  judgment  has 
been  given  to  Him;  that  equal  honor  with  the  Father  be 
longs  to  Him;  that  He  raises  the  dead  and  quickens,  even 
as  the  Father;  and  that  life  is  inherent  in  Him,  even  as 
in  the  Father.  The  proof  of  all  this  will  be  in  the  mighty 
work  of  resurrection  to  be  wrought  by  Him,  and  in  con¬ 
nection  with  which  He  will  execute  judgment,  as  He  here 
states.  His  voice  will  be  heard  and  answered  by  all; 
none  can  escape.  He  rules  over  both  dead  and  living; 
to  this  end  He  died  and  lived  again.  As  risen.  He  de¬ 
clares,  “All  power  has  been  given  Me  in  heaven  and  upon 
earth.”  Both  Paul  and  Peter  strongly  affirm  the  univer¬ 
sality  of  this,  and  its  connection  with  resurrection  (Eph. 
1:  20-23;  IPet.  3:  22).  Thus  alone  is  realized  the  full 
truth  of  the  Lord’s  words  spoken  during  His  ministry 
among  men,  “All  things  have  been  delivered  to  Me  by 
my  Father;”  and  those  also  of  John,  “The  Father  loves 
the  Son,  and  has  given  all  things  to  be  in  His  hand.” 
This  is  also  closely  linked  with  the  Old  Testament  and  its 
promises,  for  Peter  declaring  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  calls 
upon  the  Jews  to  repent,  that  He  may  come  again  to  effect 
the  restoring  of  all  things  of  which  “God  has  spoken  by 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  195 

the  mouth  of  His  holy  prophets  since  time  began”  (Acts 
3:  14-21).  It  is  the  kingdom  and  glory  which  are  in  view, 
and  the  Lord  Himself  had  given  His  disciples  to  under¬ 
stand  His  relation  as  the  risen  Man  to  the  accomplishment 
of  these  divine  purposes,  when  interpreting  to  them  in  all 
the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  Himself  (Luke  24: 
22-27,  44-46).  The  fulfilment  of  “the  sure  mercies  of 
David”  is  assured  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

Finally,  in  resurrection  He  takes  His  place  as  “Last 
Adam,”  Head  of  a  new  race.  Firstborn  among  many 
brethren,  all  of  whom  live  as  being  “in  Christ,”  for  to 
them  He  is  “a  quickening  Spirit,”  and  they  are  to  bear 
His  image.  This  brings  in  “new  creation,”  and  so  our 
identification  with  Christ;  making  the  truth  of  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  vital  importance  to  the  Christian  in  relation  to 
himself  and  his  place,  as  well  as  in  relation  to  Christ  and 
His  glory. 

3.  We  may  then  well  consider  how  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  is  made  one  of  the  great  stones  of  that  foundation 
upon  which  the  Christian  must  stand  to  insure  the  mean¬ 
ing,  security  and  enjoyment,  of  his  place  and  hope  as  a 
child  of  God. 

First,  resurrection  alone  enables  us  to  rightly  estimate 
sin  and  its  consequences.  Scripture  teaches  that  it  is 
only  as  raised  with  Christ,  as  thus  in  identification  with 
Him,  that  the  believer  has  his  place  of  acceptance  with 
God.  For  this  he  must  be  a  new  creation  in  Christ  Jesus 
This  being  so,  it  enforces  the  doctrine  of  man’s  utter  help¬ 
lessness  to  remedy  his  sinful  condition,  that  he  is  ungodly 
and  without  strength.  It  is  not  a  question  of  repairing  the 
fallen  creature,  of  healing  his  sinful  condition,  of  amelior¬ 
ation  in  any  form,  for  he  is  “dead  in  sins”  and  “alienated 


196 


Modernism 


from  God  by  wicked  works.”  Only  new  creation  can  suit 
God.  Man  in  the  flesh,  in  identification  with  the  Adam 
headship,  the  evil  nature  and^  the  sins  it  produces,  must 
receive  well-merited  judgment,  and  imder  its  execution 
pass  away  forever  from  before  God.  This  is  one  aspect 
of  the  meaning  of  the  death  of  Christ.  He  tasted  death 
for  everything  (Heb.  2:  9,  New  Trans.),  and  if  one  died 
for  all,  then  all  have  died  (2  Cor.  5:  14),  Christ’s  death 
being  the  demonstration  or  proof  that  all  were  in  such  a 
state  before  God.  This,  then,  declares  man  to  be  both 
hopeless  and  helpless.  It  is  not  within  his  own  power  to 
remedy  his  misery,  nor  will  God  give  place  to  any  of  his 
own  efforts  to  do  so,  for  in  His  sight  he  is  dead  and, 
therefore,  in  a  moral  and  spiritual  state  which  forbids  any 
thought  of  activity  on  his  part  which  would  be  acceptable 
to  God.  Anything  man  does  in  his  own  fleshly  energy 
and  wisdom  apart  from  the  quickening  Spirit  of  new  crea¬ 
tion  (as  all  such  must  be),  can  only  have  the  character  of 
‘‘dead  works.” 

Man’s  salvation,  or  preservation,  can  not  be  accom¬ 
plished  partly  by  his  own  works,  and  partly  by  the  help 
of  Christ.  This  truth  of  Scripture  emphasizes  in  the 
strongest  way  another  feature  of  its  teaching,  that  of 
man’s  complete  fall  and  its  dreadful  consequences — man’s 
sinful  helplessness  and  death-state  toward  God.  It  shows 
how  terrible  sin  really  is  in  God’s  sight.  It  has  put  man 
where,  as  far  as  he  himself  is  concerned,  he  can  have  no 
place  before  God.  This  is  one  meaning  attached  to  the 
death  of  Christ.  Man  in  the  flesh,  in  this  state  of  nature, 
does  not,  can  not,  live  unto  God.  That  as  a  creature  of 
dust  it  is  only  in  God  he  lives,  moves,  and  has  his  being, 
is  quite  different,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  spiritual  life 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  197 

and  relation  with  God,  with  which  his  eternal  blessing  and 
destiny  are  linked.  To  this,  resurrection  alone  opens  the 
door  of  hope.  As  Christ  raised  from  the  dead  is  alive  for¬ 
evermore,  in  an  entirely  new  scene,  the  centre  of  a  new 
cycle  of  relationships  founded  upon  accomplished  atone¬ 
ment,  and  is  known  no  longer  according  to  the  flesh,  so 
for  him  who  believes  in  Jesus  and  is  spoken  of  as  risen 
with  Christ,  old  things  have  passed  away  and  new  things 
have  come  in*  (2  Cor.  5:  16, 17),  all  of  which  are  of  God 
— new  nature,  new  life,  a  new  sphere  and  order  of  rela¬ 
tionship,  in  short,  new  creation,  participation  in  which  is 
alone  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  It  is  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  which  lays  the  foundation  for  all  of  this,  as  it  is 
His  death  which  proves  the  absolute  necessity  for  resurrec¬ 
tion  in  relation  to  us,  both  in  its  present  moral  and  spirit¬ 
ual  application,  and  in  that  of  the  future,  to  the  body 
of  all  those  believers  who  have  suffered  physical  death, 
if  the  great  blessing  of  living  unto  God  is  to  be  really 
and  fully  known.  This  application  of  the  truth  gives  to 
the  believer  a  new  object,  a  new  viewpoint,  a  new  out¬ 
look,  a  new  set  of  thoughts,  affections,  and  activities,  a 
new  standard  by  which  to  judge  what  are  the  more 
excellent  things  and  those  which  are  of  God,  all  directly 
connected  with  Christ  in  resurrection  and  glory,  the  last 
Adam,  and  Head  of  the  new  creation.  This  is  the  very 
opposite  of  the  teaching  of  evolution,  and  conforms  to  that 
unvarying  law  which  appears  in  all  God’s  works,  whether 
natural  or  spiritual,  in  all  His  ordinances,  whether  they 
govern  heavenly  or  earthly  beings  and  relations,  even  that 
law  stated  at  the  very  beginning  of  Genesis,  running 


*  So  many  read  this  text. 


198 


Modernism 


through  all  Scripture — “Everything  after  its  kind,”  and 
blest  alone  as  keeping  within  its  God-appointed  sphere. 
This  law  extends  even  to  man  after  the  fall,  so  that  of 
Adam  it  is  said,  he  begat  in  his  likeness,  after  his  image; 
and  it  is  made  plainly  applicable  to  the  order  of  new 
creation  in  1  Cor.  15;  all  must  be  after  the  image  of  the 
heavenly  One. 

The  whole  structure  of  the  Gospels  rests  upon  the  res¬ 
urrection  of  Christ.  The  fact  of  the  death  of  Jesus  is 
beyond  controversy,  and  its  scriptural  meaning  perfectly 
plain.  “He  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures;” 
“He  bore  them  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree;”  “Our  sins 
were  laid  upon  Him;”  “He  was  made  an  offering  for 
sin;”  “He  who  knew  no  sin  was  made  sin  for  us.”  In 
wondrous  grace  Christ  took  our  place.  If  He  did  not 
rise,  all  is  utterly  vain,  He  is  still  under  the  judgment  of 
God.  “Your  faith  is  vain,  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins.”  If 
Christ,  absolutely  perfect  and  sinless,  is  not  raised,  then 
no  man  can  be  raised.  No  one  except  Jesus  could  have 
any  personal  claim  not  to  see  corruption,  not  to  be  holden 
of  death.  Did  then  the  awful  weight  of  sin  and  sins  make 
it  otherwise?  If  so,  then  there  can  be  nothing  but  judg¬ 
ment  for  all,  His  death  and  wow-resurrection  being  the 
solemn  proof  of  it.  There  can  be  no  atonement  if  such  is 
the  case. 

If  resurrection  is  only  a  figment  of  the  imagination,  a 
subjective  vision,  then  the  death  of  Jesus  can  only  preach 
our  doom,  our  utter  ruin,  our  hopelessly  lost  condition  for 
eternity.  If  not  this,  then  we  must  be  prepared  to  deny 
that  His  death  has  anything  to  do  with  the  judgment  of 
sin  as  taught  in  Scripture;  that  indeed  God  does  not  judge 
sin  in  any  such  way;  and  that  such  a  grotesque  inter- 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  199 

pretation  as  atonement  by  the  blood  of  Christ  must  be  put 
down  as  a  first  century  notion  arising  from  an  attempt 
to  Christianize  pagan  ideas  of  sacrifice.  This,  forsooth, 
the  20th  century  must  discard.  What  with  such  denials, 
and  the  enthroning  of  man’s  own  wisdom  as  the  all- 
sufficient  standard  by  which  to  determine  the  things  of 
our  faith,  we  may  as  well  conclude  that  there  is  not  much, 
if  anything,  left  which  is  worthy  of  the  name  Christian. 
Let  the  Modernist  discard  that  name  too,  along  with  his 
rejection  of  those  vital  truths  which  have  given  it  meaning 
to  the  hearts  and  minds  of  men  for  nineteen  hundred 
years.  It  does  not  belong  to  him,  and  in  applying  it  to 
himself  and  his  views  he  is  only  attempting  to  mas¬ 
querade  as  an  angel  of  light,  when  in  fact  he  is  the 
minister  of  Satan. 

‘‘Now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead.”  This  act  of  God 
on  His  behalf  becomes  the  ground  of  our  faith  and  hope 
in  God  (1  Pet.  1:  21).  He  who  was  thus  raised  up  and 
given  glory  died  for  our  sins,  enduring  the  full  judgment 
of  God.  This  being  so  then  the  whole  question  of  sin 
and  sins  has  been  settled  to  God’s  glory,  or  else  Christ 
could  not  be  raised  from  the  dead  and  return  to  the 
Father.  God  has  set  His  seal  upon  that  work  of  righteous¬ 
ness  accomplished  in  offering  Himself  without  spot  to 
God,  so  that  now  there  is  forgiveness  of  sins  proclaimed 
in  His  name,  for  there  is  redemption  through  His  blood. 
It  cleanses  from  all  sin.  This  brings  in  the  truth  of  our 
justification.  He  has  been  “delivered  for  our  offences  and 
raised  for  our  justification”  (Rom.4: 24).  Being  justified  we 
are  as  those  against  whom  no  charge  of  sin  had  ever  been 
made.  This  is  alone  true  of  us  as  being  identified  with 
Christ  in  the  new  place  He  fills  in  resurrection,  with 


200 


Modernism 


death  and  judgment  behind,  and  we  a  new  creation  of 
which  He  is  the  glorious  Head.  That  being  justified  by 
faith  is  not  only  our  acceptance  of  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ  as  atoning  for  our  sins,  but  also  rests  upon  the 
truth  of  His  resurrection,  is  proved  by  the  case  of  Abra¬ 
ham  (Rom.  4).  His  faith  was  associated  with  the  hope 
concerning  his  seed.  His  own  body  was  dead;  but  God 
had  promised;  he  believed,  and  was  fully  persuaded  that 
God  would  perform  His  word.  But,  then,  this  faith  was 
in  Gk)d’s  power  to  quicken  the  dead,  in  fact,  in  resurrec¬ 
tion,  by  which  alone  the  promise  could  be  accomplished 
under  the  circumstances.  By  such  faith  was  Abraham 
justified.  The  same  is  true  of  believers.  That  was  im¬ 
puted  to  Abraham,  and  “not  to  him  only,  but  to  us  also, 
if  we  believe  on  Him  that  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from 
the  dead.”  We  are,  then,  justified  in  Christ  (Gal.  2:  17, 
R.  V.).  “In  {Greek,  en)  Him  every  one  that  believeth  is 
justified”  (Acts  13:  39). 

This  leads  to  the  subject  of  life.  As  raised  with  Christ, 
the  scriptural  view  is  that  according  to  God’s  thought 
Christ  is  the  believer’s  life.  It  must  be  so  for  new  crea¬ 
tion,  as  to  which  He  is  the  new  life  by  which  I  live  unto 
God,  free  from  all  judgment  and  sin;  so  that  as  a  result, 
the  life  which  I  live  in  this  body  of  flesh  is  to  be  practi¬ 
cally  conformed  to  the  mind,  spirit,  and  character  of  Him 
who  is  accounted  by  God  to  be  my  life.  The  believer  is 
to  live  Christ  in  this  world.  Though  a  poor  sinner  by 
nature  and  practice,  through  faith  in  Jesus  as  my  Saviour 
and  Lord  who  died  and  rose  again,  God  sets  me  in  a 
position  before  Him  v;hich  is  alone  measured  in  every' 
respect  by  the  place  of  Christ  as  the  glorified  Man,  the 
Head  and  Representative  of  the  new  race.  This  now 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  201 

becomes  the  standard  by  which  to  judge  and  hate  sin 
with  its  fruits,  because  it  is  the  opposite  of  what  I  actually 
am  in  God’s  sight  through  faith  in  Christ.  Most  blessed 
position  given  in  grace!  Most  blessed  and  perfect  stand¬ 
ard  and  example  for  every  phase  of  life!  As  thus  ac¬ 
counted  to  be  risen  with  Christ,  and  to  have  Him  as  our 
life,  all  believers  are  joint-participators  with  Him  and  one 
another,  first,  in  the  results  of  His  atoning  sacrifice,  so 
that  all  that  could  separate  from  God  is  entirely  removed; 
then,  in  His  place  as  risen  out  of  death,  giving  us  a  new 
place  and  sphere  in  which  all  is  new  and  of  God  (only 
reached  by  us  in  its  fulness  and  blessing  when  we  shall 
be  fully  conformed  to  the  image  of  Christ  as  Firstborn 
among  many  brethren) ;  and,  finally,  the  favor  in  which 
He  is  as  the  risen  glorified  Man  is  the  favor  in  which  all 
believers  are  for,  “As  He  is  so  are  we  in  this  world”  (1 
John  4:  17),  and,  “Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also.”  He 
is  the  heir  of  all  things,  and  we  are  joint-heirs  with  Him 
(Rom.  8:  17).  He  is  the  Son,  and  believers  are  sons  of 
God,  having  the  Spirit  of  His  Son,  calling  God  “Father,” 
and  having  fellowship  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  (Gal. 
4:6;  1  John  1:  3,  4). 

This  wondrous  place  and  its  connected  relationships 
founded  upon  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  neces¬ 
sarily  brings  in  our  hope  and  its  realization,  for  as  being 
children  of  God  we  are  children  of  the  resurrection.  Thus, 
though  we  are  now  the  children  of  God,  what  we  shall  be 
has  not  yet  been  manifested.  When  it  is  manifested,  “we 
shall  be  like  Him,  for  we  shall  see  Him  as  He  is,”  and  we 
shall  be  with  Him  forever.  This  is  the  Christian’s  hope  in 
Christ.  If  He  is  not  risen  it  is  utter  folly,  for  then  there 
can  be  no  such  event  as  that  of  His  coming  again,  at 


202 


Modernism 


which  time  our  hope  is  to  be  realized  (1  John  3:  1-3; 
John  14:  1-3;  Rom.  8:  18-30;  Gal.  5:  5;  Phil.  3:  20,21). 
This,  too,  I  suppose,  must  come  from  subjective  visions; 
but  I  must  not  anticipate,  for  it  is  the  subject  of  our  next 
chapter.  It  is  the  Man  Jesus,  God’s  Son,  for  whom  we 
w^ait  to  come  from  heaven  (1  Thess.  1:  10).  Can  this  be 
unless  His  bodily  resurrection  is  true?  Is  it  not  the  same 
Jesus  who  died  and  rose  again  that  shall  descend  from 
heaven?  (Acts  1:11;  1  Thess.  4:  14-17). 

Much  more  might  be  said,  but  I  must  be  content  to 
point  out  as  a  final  suggestion  the  bearing  of  this  truth 
upon  the  practical  Christian  life.  It  plainly  declares  that 
man  morally  is  utterly  ruined,  that  God  is  not  patching  up 
the  old,  nor  attempting  to  reform  either  man  or  his  world- 
system;  and  that  no  matter  how  potential  man’s  faculties 
may  be.  He  is  bringing  in  what  is  absolutely  new  as  to 
its  power,  character,  and  condition.  This  alone  can  suit 
God  in  view  of  man’s  fallen  state.  The  knowledge  of 
this  must  clearly  affect  the  whole  manner  of  Christian  life, 
both  in  attitude  toward  the  world  and  activity  in  it. 
Christ  who  is  our  life  is  our  great  and  perfect  example. 
His  life  was  one  of  continuous  devoted  service  for  God 
and  man.  He  ever  went  about  doing  good.  But  He  did 
not  undertake  the  task  of  correcting,  or  bringing  about  a 
reconstruction  of,  the  political,  commercial,  or  social  con¬ 
ditions  of  the  world.  He  left  things  as  He  found  them, 
moving  among  them,  ever  giving  help  to  the  needy,  com¬ 
forting  the  distressed,  suffering  reproach,  teaching  the 
truth,  but  never  seeking  or  claiming  a  place  from  and 
among  men,  and  ever  aiming  at  the  individual  heart  and 
conscience,  their  attitude  and  relation  Godward  being  of 
first  importance.  Throughout,  the  principle  to  govern  is 


The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  203 

that  of  the  loss  of  life  here,  the  daily  cross  taken  up  as 
following  Him;  but,  as  a  result,  life  is  kept  for  and  truly 
gained  in  eternity  with  Him.  Of  this  His  resurrection  is 
at  once  the  prophecy  and  assurance  to  faith,  while  His 
life  and  death  exhibit  perfectly  the  master  principle  for 
true  Christian  living  and  service. 

There  are  other  lines  of  truth  which  might  well  be 
linked  with,  and  considered  in  relation  to,  this  great  fact 
of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  such  as  for  example  the  work 
of  judgment,  particularly  that  of  the  wicked;  and  the 
two  resurrections;  and  the  place  resurrection  has  in  all 
the  dispensations  of  God,  as  traced  out  in  Scripture  from 
the  very  beginning — all  of  which  is  alone  validated  by  the 
truth  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  The  central  place  that 
this  occupies  in  the  purposes  of  God  is  the  apostle’s  theme 
in  1  Cor.  15.  And  that  it  is  literal,  bodily  resurrection  is 
clearly  conveyed  by  one  expression,  among  many  others — 
^‘Since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  the  res¬ 
urrection  of  the  dead.”  What  man?  The  Man  Christ 
Jesus. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


The  second  coming  of  Jesus:  Is  it  an  ethical  idea,  or  an 
actual  personal  appearing,  and  still  future? 

S  with  the  resurrection,  so  with  the  Lord’s  second 


coming,  unless  there  is  to  be  an  actual,  personal, 


“^second  advent  of  Jesus  in  bodily  form,  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  New  Testament  is  void  of  meaning,  unintelli- 
gible,  and  so  utterly  deceptive,  that  a  dark  cloud  of 
doubt  is  cast  over  the  whole  book.  If  the  writers  were 
deluded  in  this;  the  whole  of  the  volume  is  vitiated,  and 
no  confidence  can  be  placed  in  any  of  their  teachings,  for 
this  coming  again  is  interwoven  into  every  part  of  their 
writings.  It  is  vital  to  the  integrity  of  the  book. 

The  Lord’s  ascension  is  necessarily  related  to  the  truth 
of  the  second  coming,  as  it  is  also  the  fitting  conclusion 
to  the  period  spent  by  our  Lord  on  the  earth  after  His 
resurrection.  The  accounts  of  the  ascension  and  succeed¬ 
ing  attitude  of  the  disciples  show  that  they  expected  no 
further  manifestations  such  as  they  had  experienced  dur¬ 
ing  the  forty  days,  so  they  were  found  together  waiting 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  promise  concerning  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  took  place  ten  days  later. 

The  Lord  had  plainly  spoken  of  His  return  to  the 
Father  from  whom  He  had  come,  being  sent  by  Him  into 
the  world.*  Clearly,  this  return  was  realized  at  the  as¬ 
cension.  The  disciples  so  understood  it.  Peter  preached 
it;  Stephen  witnessed  to  it;  Paul,  along  with  the  resur- 

*Lk.  22:69;  John  6:  62;  8:42;  13:3;  14:12,28;  16:5, 
10,16,28;  20: 17. 


The  Second  Coming  of  Jesus 


205 


rection,  makes  it  one  of  the  great  features  of  his  teach¬ 
ing.*  Jesus  thus  entered  into  His  glory,  was  received  up 
into  glory,  was  crowned  with  glory  and  honor,  and  re¬ 
ceived  glory  from  God.f  When  He  was  glorified  the  Spirit 
would  be  given  as  promised  (John  7:  39;  16:  7).  His 
departure,  instead  of  making  them  disconsolate  and  dis¬ 
united,  only  awakened  joy  and  worship  (Luke  24:  50-53; 
Acts  1:  13, 14).  His  ascension  is  immediately  followed 
by  angelic  testimony  to  His  return,  in  like  manner  to  that 
in  which  they  had  seen  Him  taken  up  into  heaven. 

As  the  words  of  Christ  and  the  apostolic  teaching — “then* 
word,”  as  He  says  (John  17:  20) — demand  the  acceptance 
of  His  literal  resurrection,  so,  too,  they  absolutely  require 
that  the  ascension  be  considered  as  an  accomplished  fact, 
and  that  His  personal  return  be  accepted  as  of  certain 
occurrence.  All  are  woven  together  like  a  threefold  cord 
not  easily  broken.  These  three  things  are  fundamentally 
linked  with  the  truth  of  His  Person  and  atoning  death, 
both  as  relating  to  God’s  glory  and  man’s  blessing  in  the 
widest  sense.  All  three  are  a  matter  of  testimony  given 
by  the  Lord  Himself. 

I. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  an  actual  personal  advent  of  Jesus 
to  bring  about  the  full  accomplishment  of  God’s  purposes 
does  not  fit  into  the  evolutionary  program,  any  more 
than  the  fall  of  man  can  be  given  a  place  in  it.  Such 

♦Acts  1:22;  2:33;  5:31;  7:55,56;  1  Pet.  3:22;  Rom. 
8:34;  Eph.  1:20;  4:8,10;  Col.  3:1;  Heb.  1:3;  8:1;  10: 
12;  12:  2;  Rev.  12:  5. 

t  Lk.  24 :  26 ;  1  Tim.  3 :  16 ;  Heb.  2:9;  1  Pet.  1 :  21 ;  John 
17:  1,  5,24. 


206 


JModernism 


events  are  ‘‘cataclysmic,”  and  the  former  would  certainly 
be  a  “divine  invasion,”  if  you  please,  a  very  serious  in¬ 
trusion  upon  the  unity,  order,  and  eternal  progress  of  the 
world.  But,  in  reality,  it  is  only  by  some  form  of  invasion 
that  God  can  enter  man^s  realm,  man’s  world-system 
which  lies  in  the  wicked  one,  for  Satan  is  its  prince  and 
god.*  Jesus,  Himself,  speaks  of  binding  the  strong  man 
and  spoiling  his  goods  (Matt.  12:  25-30).  Every  case  of 
true  conversion  is  by  an  act  tantamount  to  invasion,  like 
the  darkness  riven  by  the  light  as  a  result  of  the  Divine 
fiat.  All  production  and  transformation  in  relation  to 
life,  natural  and  spiritual,  is  by  action  of  an  invasive 
character.  But  such  an  invasion  as  contemplated  by  the 
second  advent  is  not  acceptable  to  evolutionary  theorists, 
because  it  distinctly  involves  the  utter  failure  of  all  hu¬ 
man  wisdom  and  endeavor  to  attain  the  establishment  of 
anything  like  perfect  conditions  among  men  on  the  earth. 
It  preaches,  in  consonance  with  all  Scripture,  man’s  failure, 
incapacity,  and  sinfulness,  and  that  he  is  not  able  Jo  bring 
in  the  reign  of  righteousness  and  peace  with  universal 
blessing — that  golden  age,  the  longing  for  which  has  re¬ 
ceived  some  form  of  expression  in  every  age  and  clime, 
nowhere  so  beautifully  as  in  the  Bible.  This  touches 
man’s  pride,  really  denies  his  boasted  self-sufficiency,  and 
argues  against  his  assured  progress  until  by  his  own 
efforts  he  has  reached  the  stature  of  Christ.  This  is 
further  intimated  by  the  solemn  work  of  world-judgment 
v/hich  is  connected  with  the  second  advent.  When  He 
comes  in  power  and  with  great  glory.  He  will  gather 


*lJohn  5:19;  John  12:  31;  14:80;  16:11;  Eph.2:2; 
2  Cor.  4 :  4. 


The  Second  Coming  ('f  Jesus 


207 


out  of  His  kingdom  all  things  that  offend  (Matt.  13:  41). 
Then  shall  a  king  ‘‘reign  in  righteousness,  and  princes  shall 
rule  in  judgment.  And  a  Man  (who  can  doubt  what 
[Man?)  shall  be  a  hiding-place  from  the  wind,  and  a  covert 
from  the  storm;  as  rivers  of  water  in  a  dry  place,  as  the 
shadow  of  a  great  rock  in  a  weary  land  .  .  .  and  the 
work  of  righteousness  shall  be  peace;  and  the  effect  of 
righteousness  quietness  and  assurance  for  ever’’  (Isa.  32: 
1,2,17). 

To  make  this  coming  of  Christ  something  of  an  ethical 
nature  evacuates  language  of  all  meaning.  By  such  a  law 
of  interpretation  there  is  nothing  written  that  could  carry 
certain  assurance  concerning  any  fact.  It  is  “handling 
the  Word  of  God  deceitfully”  (2  Cor.  4:  2).  The  whole 
Modernist  system  is  fittingly  described  by  Paul  when, 
speaking  of  the  New  Testament  ministry  in  particular,  he 
says  it  was  given  “in  order  that  we  be  may  no  longer  babes., 
tossed  and  carried  about  by  every  wind  of  teaching  which 
is  in  the  sleight  of  men,  in  unprincipled  cunning,  with  a 
view  to  systematized  error.”* 

The  Modernist,  following  his  so-called  historical  method, 
traces  the  hopes  of  Christ’s  glorious  second  advent  to  set 


*  Eph.  4 :  14,  New  Translation.  “Lit.,  tending  to  the 
system  of  error.  R.  V.,  after  the  wiles  of  error.  Medodeia 
means  a  deliberate  planning^  or  system.  Of  error  in¬ 
cludes  the  idea  of  deceit  or  delusion.  Error  organizes. 
It  has  its  systems  and  its  logic.  Ellicott  remarks  that 
here  it  is  almost  personified”  (Dr.  M.  R.  Vincent  in  “IPord 
Studies.”).  The  issue  between  Modernism  and  New  Tes¬ 
tament  Christianity  is  plain.  Which  is  to  be  judged  as  the 
system  of  error? 


208 


iMODERNISM 


up  His  kingdom  on  earth,  to  the  train  of  Jewish  thought 
developed  out  of  “their  desperate  national  circumstances,” 
which  gave  birth 

“to  the  hope  of  their  Messiah’s  sudden  coming  on  the 
clouds  of  heaven  for  their  help.  Between  the  Testaments 
this  expectation  expanded  and  robed  itself  with  pomp  and 
glory,  so  that  when  the  Christians  came  they  found  await¬ 
ing  them  a  phrasing  of  hope  which  they  accepted  to  body 
forth  their  certainty  of  God’s  coming  sovereignty  over  all 
the  earth.  This  expectation  of  coming  triumph  was  not 
progressive;  it  was  cataclysmic.  It  did  not  offer  the 
prospect  of  great  gains  to  be  worked  for  over  long  periods 
of  time;  it  offered  a  divine  invasion  of  history  imme¬ 
diately  at  hand.  It  was  pictured  not  in  terms  of  human 
betterment  to  be  achieved,  but  of  divine  action  to  be 
awaited.  The  victory  would  suddenly  come  like  the  flood 
in  Noah’s  day,  like  the  lightning  flashing  from  one  end  of 
the  heaven  to  the  other,  like  a  thief  in  the  night.”* 

Thus  apostolic  Christianity  absorbed  the  Jewish  ideas, 
and  associated  them  with  Jesus.  Consequently  most  eager 
expectation  ruled  the  early  Christians.  This,  it  is  argued 
soon  grew  dim  through  change  of  circumstances,  resulting 
in  emphasis  being  removed  from 

“what  Christ  would  do  for  his  people  when  he  came  upon 
the  clouds  of  heaven  to  what  he  was  doing  for  them 
through  his  spiritual  presence  with  them.  Even  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  one  finds  this  good  news  that  Christ  had 
already  come  again  in  the  hearts  of  his  people  insisted 
on  in  evident  contrast  with  the  apocalyptic  hope  literally  con¬ 
ceived.  (?).  For  another  thing,  dramatic  hopes  of  a  sudden 
invasion  of  the  world  are  always  the  offspring  of  desperate 
conditions.  Only  when  people  are  hard  put  to  it  do  they 


*  ^‘Christianity  and  Progress/^  pp.  18, 19,  Fosdick. 


The  Second  Coming  of  Jesus  209 

want  history  catastrophically  stopped  in  the  midst  of  its 
course.  The  Book  of  Daniel  must  be  explained  by  the 
tyrannies  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (?),  the  Book  of  Reve¬ 
lation  by  the  persecutions  of  Domitian  (?),  the  present 
recrudescence  of  pre-millennialism  by  the  tragedy  of  the 
Great  War.  But  when  the  persecution  of  the  Church 
by  the  State  gave  way  to  the  running  of  the  State 
by  the  Church  ;  when  to  be  a  Christian  was  no  longer 
a  road  to  the  lions  but  the  sine  qua  non  of  prefer¬ 
ment  and  power;  when  the  souls  under  the  altar  ceased 
crying.  ‘How  long,  O  Master,  the  holy  and  true,  dost 
thou  not  judge  and  avenge  our  blood  on  them  that  dwell 
on  the  earth  ?  ’  then  the  apocalyptic  hopes  grew  dim 
and  the  old  desire  for  a  kingdom  immediately  to  come 
was  subdued  to  an  expectation,  no  longer  imperative  and 
urgent,  that  sometime  the  course  of  history  would  stop 
on  Judgment  Day.”* 

These  “Greek  and  Roman,  Hebrew  and  Christian  con' 
tributions”  are  to  be  rejected  because  they  contained  “no 
suggestion  of  a  modem  idea  of  progress.” 

The  Greek  and  Roman  outlook  was  non-progressive. 
For  them,  in  the  main,  there  was  only  the  constant  re¬ 
current  cycles  of  history,  each  beginning  in  perfection, 
and  finally  falling  into  min.  To  this,  it  is  said,  the  He¬ 
brews  added  a  dramatic  picture  of  God’s  final  triumph, 
resulting  in  earth’s  golden  age,  some  slight  intimation  of 
which  at  least  may  also  be  found  in  Greek  and  Roman 
thought.  The  Christian  took  up  all  of  these  ideas  and 
wove  them  into  his  plan.  This  is  the  value  of  apostolic 
teaching  for  us  ( !  ? ) . 

Again  it  is  said, 

“Jesus  adopted  the  current  Jewish  ideal  [the  Messianic 
kingdom]  and  adapted  it  to  His  ideal  ...  if  we  thought 


*  Christianity  and  Progress,'^  pp.  20,  21,  Fosdick. 


2i0 


Modernism 


that  Jesus  essayed  to  be  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  to  bring 
to  fruitage  their  conception  of  it*  and  that  He  failed  in 
his  attempt  at  his  last  entrance  into  Jerusalem,  a  poor 
deluded  religious  and  national  zealot,  then  we  should  write 
no  more,  nor  would  there  ever  have  been  any  church 
history  to  be  read  .  .  .  His  disciples  never  understood 
his  conception.  They  have  handed  it  down,  clothed  with 
their  own  preconceptions.!  ^But  it  seems  a  perverse  blind¬ 
ness  to  what  is  palpably  distinctive  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  to  hold  Him  to  have  been  possessed  by  the  apo¬ 
calyptic  conceptions  of  the  kingdom  which  ruled  the  mind 
of  the  people.^ 

“In  St.  John’s  Gospel  we  find  that  the  conception  of 
eternal  life  is  equated  with  and  takes  the  place  of  that 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  this  latter  being  used  but  twice 


*  It  may  be  well  to  remark  that  this  is  practically  the 
Old  Testament  conception  that  is  referred  to,  even  those 
glowing  word-pictures  of  the  Messiah  and  His  glorious 
kingdom  which  so  largely  abound  in  the  Prophets.  It  is 
true  that  the  people,  while  holding  to  this  conception,  had 
failed  to  apprehend  weighty  moral  and  spiritual  truth  con¬ 
nected  with  it,  and  this  contributed  very  largely  to  the 
rejection  of  Jesus,  yet  in  no  way  does  this  vitiate  the 
kingdom-conception  in  its  apocalyptic  character. 

t  The  conception  above  referred  to  was  held  by  the  Lord 
and  His  inspired  apostles.  If  not,  we  must  charge  these 
writers  with  wilful  perversion  of  His  views,  and  that  by 
putting  words  into  His  mouth  which  He  never  uttered! 
Thus  they  made  Him  the  exponent  of  their  preconceptions ! 
If  this  be  so,  we  must  tear  out  every  reference  to  the  apo¬ 
calyptic  conception  of  the  kingdom  from  our  Bibles;  tins 
would  include  the  teaching  concerning  the  second  coming 
of  Jesus.  This,  as  to  the  New  Testament  alone,  would 
mutilate  every  book  in  it,  casting  the  gravest  doubt  upon 
every  part  of  it. 


The  Second  Coming  of  Jesus  211 

ir.  this  Gospel.  The  whole  of  Jesus’  teaching  shows  this 
to  have  been  His  conception  of  his  work  and  mission,  rather 
than  that  of  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God.*  The  category  used  is  biological  rather  than  political, 
T  am  come  that  they  might  have  life,  and  that  they  might 
have  it  more  abundantly.’  Both  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark 
preserve  some  of  Jesus’  biological  conception,  amidst  their 
Hebraic  clothes  of  Messianism,  wherewith  they  marred 
his  form  (!?).  Either  Jesus  was  a  deluded  zealot,  or  his 
disciples  misunderstood  Him.  ^Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  this 
generation  shall  not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled.’ 
They  took  this  literally,  if  they  did  not  put  it  into  his 
mouth.  If  he  uttered  this  he  did  not  take  it  literally,  or, 
he  was  mistaken. 

“Upon  the  whole,  the  judgment  of  the  church  has  been 
right  in  rejecting  millenarianism.  It  has  flourished  only 
sporadically  in  small  sects  of  zealots  for  the  Jewish 
conception.”! 

This  is  about  all  we  are  given  as  a  guide  to  interpret 
the  great  mass  of  Scripture  which  treats  of  the  Second 
Coming  of  Jesus.  In  this,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  the 
dissipation  of  the  true  meaning  presents  too  great  a  task 
even  for  Modernists,  so  that  it  is  judiciously  left,  while 
they  rely  on  the  mass  of  their  other  perversions  of  funda¬ 
mental  Christian  doctrine  to  so  enlighten  (?)  their  fellov- 
mortals  that  this  truth  will  not  be  a  cause  of  concern. 
In  the  light  of  all  the  rest,  it  simply  cannot  be  what  the 

*  Here  the  argument  is  made  to  rest  on  the  Gospel  of 
John  which  the  critics  so  boldly  declare  cannot  be  accepted 
as  authoritative.  For  the  answer  to  this  see  Genuineness 
of  John^s  Gospel,  Appendix.  Here  it  pleases  the  Modernist 
to  use  it  to  discredit  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  simply  because 
in  them  the  second  coming  is  so  plainly  taught.  Again,  I 
must  remark,  “The  legs  of  the  lame  hang  loosely.” 

f  Modernism  in  Religion,”  pp.  29,  30.  J.  M.  Sterret. 


212 


Modernism 


language  implies.  The  fact  is,  that  the  statements  of 
Scripture  on  this  subject  are  so  clear  and  definite  as  to 
defy  even  their  amazing  ingenuity  to  make  them  consist 
of  mere  ethical  notions.  Since  this  doctrine,  like  many 
others,  does  not  accord  with  20th  century  ideas,  there  is 
only  one  thing  to  do  with  it,  and  that  is,  reject  it  as  a 
product  of  about  two  millenniums  ago,  when  man’s  mind 
was  still  uninstructed  in  the  marvels  of  evolutionary  theory, 
and  still  fettered  by  tradition,  liberation  from  which  has 
been  achieved  by  the  modem  historico-critical  methods  of 
investigation.  Let  those  who  will  enjoy  such  freedom  (?) 
and  the  enlightenment  it  is  supposed  to  impart,  but  every 
sincere  Christian  can  only  consider  it  as  bondage  to 
powers  of  spiritual  wickedness,  the  universal  lords  of  this 
darkness,  who  withstand  the  tmth  through  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  human  instruments.  Against  these  he  must  wres¬ 
tle,  as  taking  up  the  panoply  of  God  which  alone  can 
enable  him  to  withstand  in  the  evil  day,  and  having  ac¬ 
complished  all  things,*  in  spite  of  opposition,  to  stand 
(Eph.  6:  10-13). 


*  That  is,  *‘Ever3dhing  which  the  crisis  demands.”  Who 
can  doubt  the  present  crisis?  The  need  is  “to  contend 
earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.”  And 
Jude  turns  us  back  to  “the  words  spoken  before  by  the 
apostles  of  our  Lord  J esus  Christ,”  particularly  as  to  mock¬ 
ers  like  those  of  whom  Peter  speaks :  “I  stir  up  your  sincere 
minds  by  putting  you  in  remembrance;  that  ye  should 
remember  the  words  spoken  before  by  the  holy  prophets, 
and  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour  through 
your  apostles:  knowing  this  first,  that  in  the  last  days 
mockers  shall  come  with  mockery,  walking  after  their  own 
lusts,  and  saying.  Where  is  the  promise  of  His  coming?” 
Paul  and  John  join  in  giving  the  same  warning.  We  are 


The  Second  Coming  cf  Jesus 


213 


II. 

The  New  Testament  teaches  the  personal  return  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  with  special  reference  to  the  Church,  and 
also  to  establish  His  kingdom  in  heavenly  glory  on  the 
earth.  Anyone  reading  through  the  Book,  even  casually, 
could  not  fail  to  arrive  at  this  conclusion.  In  relation  to 
the  Church  it  is  shown  to  be  an  ever-present  expectation, 
eagerly  awaited;  and,  as  constantly  entertained  by  the 
Christian,  exercises  a  directive  influence  in  his  daily  life, 
effecting  practical  purification  (1  John  3:3). 

It  is  spoken  of  as  the  Christian’s  blessed  hope,  his  com¬ 
fort,  his  redemption  as  regards  the  body,  his  deliverance 
out  of  all  present  conditions,  his  time  of  reward,  his  ac¬ 
tual  presence  with  the  Lord,  his  coming  with  the  Lord  to 
reign  over  the  earth,  his  participation  in  the  kingdom  and 
glory  as  being  an  heir  of  God,  joint-heir  with  Christ.* * 

It  is  the  time  of  resurrection  for  all  those  who  have  died 
in  Christ,  and  of  change  for  all  who,  believing  in  Him 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  may  be  alive  at  the  moment 
of  His  coming.  Then  full  conformation  to  the  image  of 
the  heavenly  One  will  be  accomplished,  and  He  be  dis¬ 
played  as  the  Firstborn  among  many  brethren,  the  many 
sons  who  are  being  led  to  glory  by  Him,  the  Captain  of 
their  salvation.f 


in  the  days  of  which  these  apostles  spoke.  This  is  at  least 
one  evidence  that  '^Scripture  can  not  be  broken.” 

*  Titus  2:  13;  1  Thess.  4:  18;  Phil.  3:  20,  21;  Rom.  8:  17- 
24 ;  Rev.  22 : 12 ;  1  Cor.  4:5;  1  Thess.  4:17;  2  Thess.  1 :  5  • 
10;  Rev.  2:25-29;  3:21,22. 

1 1  Thess.  4 :  13-17 ;  1  Cor.  15 :  23,  42-58 ;  Rom.  8 :  11,  29. 


214 


Modernism 


Nearly  every  New  Testament  book  contains  direct  re¬ 
ferences  to  this  great  event.  It  is  made  to  bear  upon 
every  aspect  of  Christian  life  and  hope.  It  is  blessedly 
related  to  the  meaning  of  Christ’s  first  coming.  Then  He 
accomplished  eternal  redemption  by  the  sacrifice  of  Him¬ 
self  on  the  cross,  and  laid  the  foundation  for  all  blessing 
according  to  God’s  glory,  so  making  possible  on  an  abso¬ 
lutely  righteous  basis  the  accomplishment  of  God’s  eternal 
purpose  in  Him.  By  His  work  on  the  cross  He  made  it 
possible  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  to  be  preached  in  His 
name,  and  to  be  granted  to  every  one  believing  in  Him. 
In  the  fulness  of  time,  at  the  appointed  hour.  He  ap¬ 
peared  to  put  away  sin  by  His  own  sacrifice.  Thus  He 
opened  the  door  for  poor  sinful  creatures  through  faith  in 
Him  as  Saviour  and  Lord  to  have  eternal  participation 
with  Him  in  all  the  glorious  inheritance  to  which  He  had 
been  appointed  in  God’s  eternal  purpose.  The  knowledge 
of  all  that  belongs  to  faith,  on  the  basis  of  the  work 
accomplished  when  He  first  appeared,  is  indeed  already 
given,  but  actual  possession  in  fulness  and  glory  awaits 
the  Lord’s  second  coming.  Then  the  purposed  consum¬ 
mation  is  reached,  and  perfect  entrance  is  given  into  all 
that  “new  creation”  means.  Thus  the  wondrous  results 
of  His  atoning  sacrifice  only  find  full  revelation  at  the 
second  coming.  It  introduces  to  them.  Indeed,  it  is 
called  “salvation,”*  though  it  by  no  means  is  all  that 
Scripture  teaches  us  to  include  in  that  precious  word. 

The  Thessalonian  Epistles  make  plain  that  this  hope, 
this  waiting  for  the  Son  from  heaven,  was  of  the  very 
essence  of  Christianity,  and  a  marked  feature  of  the  apos- 


*Heb.  9:  28;  1  Pet.  1:  5,13;  Roni.l3:ll  with  Phil.  3:  20, 21, 


The  Second  Coming  of  Jesus  215 

tolic  Church.  As  a  constant  expectation,  it  had  a  direct 
effect  upon  Christian  attitude  toward  the  world,  Christian 
service  in  the  world,  and  Christian  comfort,  whether  in 
the  hour  of  persecution  or  death.  It  conduced  to  a  patient 
spirit,  to  holy  living,  to  ardent  love  and  self-sacrificing 
ministry;  detaching  mind  and  heart  from  worldly  ob¬ 
jects  and  pursuits,  and  attaching  them  to  heavenly  things; 
making  Christ  the  great  object  in  all  things,  so  that  His 
mind  and  spirit  found  living  expression  in  His  devoted 
followers. 

When  this  great  hope  began  to  languish  in  the  Church, 
with  the  consequent  loss  of  practical  power  over  Christian 
life,  the  Church  began  to  lose  her  distinctive  character. 
She  became  merged  with  the  world,  animated  with  its 
spirit,  and  instead  of  sharing  the  path  of  rejection  and 
suffering  which  her  heavenly  Head  and  Lord  had  endured 
in  the  world,  and  which  He  said  would  be  the  portion  of 
His  people  if  faithful  to  His  name,  she  attained  the  place 
of  preferment  and  rule,  until  in  utter  debasement  she  no 
longer  could  be  considered  as  representing  Christ.  In 
fact,  as  early  as  John’s  closing  years,  true  representation 
of  Christ  and  His  death  was  beginning  to  be  found  only 
in  a  remnant  in  the  worldly  church.  The  history  of  the 
Church  is  the  saddest  of  all  histories,  when  considered  in 
the  light  of  the  New  Testament  revelation  of  Christ’s 
desire  and  God’s  purpose  concerning  it.  In  character,  it  is 
indeed  the  same  kind  of  history  which  man  always 
makes  in  connection  with  any  divine  institution  com¬ 
mitted  to  his  responsibility.  The  story  of  Adam’s  fail 
repeats  itself  all  along  the  line;  but  it  is  saddest  in 
relation  to  the  Church,  because  of  the  immense  increase 
of  divine  knowledge  and  privilege  granted  to  her  through 
the  grace  and  love  of  God  revealed  in  His  Son. 


216 


Modernism 


III. 

The  more  orderly  treatment  of  scripture  teaching  as  to 
the  second  coming  of  Jesus  I  shall  leave  for  the  next 
chapter,  concluding  this  one  by  simply  pointing  out  what 
this  coming  can  not  be,  by  reason  of  the  very  circum¬ 
stances  connected  with  it. 

It  can  not  be  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  either  at 
Pentecost,  or  to  individual  believers  during  this  present 
period  of  God’s  grace,  for  the  Holy  Spirit  (having  come) 
speaks  by  Peter  of  the  return  of  Jesus  to  effect  future 
restoration  and  blessing.  The  coming  of  the  Spirit,  and 
the  still  future  coming  of  Jesus,  to  receive  His  own  and 
conduct  them  into  the  Father’s  house,  are  clearly  distin¬ 
guished  in  John  14.  Further,  none  of  the  dead  were 
raised,  nor  the  living  changed  as  to  their  bodies,  when  the 
Spirit  came,  nor  did  world-judgment  ensue. 

It  can  not  refer  to  the  death  of  the  Christian,  for  his 
present  body  is  then  vacated,  and  the  spirit  goes  to  be 
with  the  Lord,  remaining  in  an  “unclothed”  state  until  the 
resurrection  at  Christ’s  second  coming.  Then  also  those 
believers  who  are  alive  on  the  earth  will  have  their  present 
bodies  instantly  changed  to  a  fashion  like  unto  the  Lord’s 
body  of  glory.  The  believing  dead  raised,  the  spirit 
clothed  with  its  heavenly  and  spiritual  body,  and  the 
living  believers  likewise  changed,  all  will  be  united  in  one 
company  to  be  forever  with  the  Lord. 

Plainly,  it  can  not  be  at  what  we  call  conversion,  that 
is,  when  we  are  “born  again,”  and  receive  through  faith 
in  Christ  the  gift  of  God  which  is  eternal  life  in  Christ 
Jesus,  thus  commencing  a  new  history  as  living  unto  God 
in  Christ.  All  this  brings  blessed  assurance  that  what  is 


The  Second  Coming  of  Jesus  217 

involved  in  this  spiritual  work  will  be  made  good  in  per- 
fection  when  the  Lord  comes,  and  He  is  seen  as  He  is. 

It  can  not  be  the  end  of  the  world,  for  the  Second 
Coming  is  introductory  to  the  millennial  reign  of  Christ 
over  the  earth,  and  the  great  work  of  gathering  together 
in  one  all  things  which  are  in  heaven  and  on  earth  under 
His  authority.  Thus  Scripture  associates  the  destiny  of 
Israel,  and  of  all  nations,  with  the  appearing  of  the  glory 
of  our  great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Second  Coming  of  Christ  is  of  utmost  importance 
to  the  individual  Christian,  to  the  Church  as  a  whole,  to 
the  people  of  Israel,  to  the  world  at  large,  and,  reverently 
let  me  say,  to  God  Himself,  for  all  things  have  been  com¬ 
mitted  to  Christ  whether  in  the  realms  of  life,  or  death, 
or  divine  purpose.  He  is  the  first  and  the  last,  the  One 
that  liveth  and  was  dead,  but  is  alive  forevermore,  and 
He  has  the  keys  of  death  and  hades. 

He  says,  “Behold,  I  come  quickly,  and  my  reward  is 
with  Me,  to  render  to  every  one  as  his  work  shall  be. 
I  am  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the 
end,  the  first  and  the  last.” 

It  can  not  be,  instead  of  a  physical  second  advent,  a 
moral  and  spiritual  return  or  coming  of  repeated  occur¬ 
rence  during  the  course  of  human  history,  taking  place 
at  every  crisis  in  human  affairs  when  there  is  the  collapse 
of  some  existing  order  of  society,  so  that  upon  such  lower¬ 
ing  clouds  of  trouble  the  glorious  Son  of  Man  comes  riding 
with  the  hope  of  finding  faith  upon  the  earth,  to  bring 
about  on  each  such  occasion  a  new  beginning  upon  new 
principles.  In  advocating  this  idea,  it  is  boldly  said  that 
Jesus  in  what  He  says  about  His  coming  again  is  simply 
“giving  us  a  reading  of  human  history.  It  is  a  story  punc- 


218 


Modernism 


tuated  with  recurring  disaster,  and  in  every  such  time  of 
trouble  there  is  a  return  of  that  Son  of  God  who  is  ever 
offering  Himself  to  mankind.’’*  We  are  assured  that 
“the  New  Testament  teaches  repeated  or  continuous  com¬ 
ings  of  Christ,  rather  than  one  second  coming.”  There  are 
at  least  five,  and  we  are  told  that  they  are: 

1.  The  coming  at  the  time  of  social  upheaval. 

2.  The  coming  within  “this  generation.” 

3.  The  coming  at  His  resurrection. 

4.  The  coming  as  the  Holy  Spirit  (John  14:  18). 

5.  His  coming  at  the  death  of  a  disciple  (John  14:  3). 

Further,  we  must  not  think  that  Christ  meant  a  phy¬ 
sical  return.  His  language  must  not  be  accepted  literally. 
Christ’s  meaning  was  figurative  and  spiritual.  “The  apos¬ 
tles  may  themselves  have  been  misled  by  the  Rabbinical 
type  of  interpretation  of  their  day,  and  so  may  have  taken 
Jesus  literally.”  Their  language,  like  His,  must  be  inter¬ 
preted  as  figurative  and  spiritual.  Then  we  can  hardly 
think  of  these  apostles  and  prophets  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  as  inspired  men  giving  forth  God-breathed  Scrip¬ 
tures,  they  were  simply  guided  by  first  century  notions 
and  Rabbinical  traditions! 

Of  the  various  comings  mentioned,  the  first  and  fifth 
are  to  be  considered  as  continually  recurring.  The  others, 
I  suppose,  are  to  be  counted  as  fulfilled.  At  every  time  of 
social  upheaval  we  are  to  read  an  accomplishment  of 


*  This,  and  the  following  quotations  in  this  chapter,  are 
from  **Religion  and  Modern  Thought — the  return  of  Je¬ 

sus  by  A.  R.  Belden,  B.  A.,  in  The  Review  and  Expositor 
for  April,  1923,  Southern  Baptist  Theological  Seminary. 


The  Second  Coming  of  Jesus  219 

those  signs  of  the  coming  of  which  the  Lord  spoke,  for 
they  are  not  to  be  thought  of  as  indicating  “a  cosmic  up-^ 
heaval,  but  a  social  collapse” — the  end  of  some  particular 
order  of  human  society  on  the  planet,  so  that  a  new  be¬ 
ginning  may  be  made.  This  is  brought  about  by  Jesus 
coming  “  ‘upon  the  clouds'  of  human  disturbance.”  We 
are  warned  that  these  disasters  or  collapses  of  the  world's 
life  must  recur  “until  humanity  agrees  to  build  its  life 
upon  the  principles  and  leadership  of  God’s  Son,”  and  of 
course  it  is  this  which  He  is  trying  to  effect  every  time 
He  comes  when  such  events  take  place;  but  thus  far  He 
has  failed  to  fully  convince  the  great  world-builders  that 
they  are  still  using  untempered  mortar,  and  have  not  been 
fully  guided  by  “the  Divine  laws  of  human  society” — the 
ethical  teachings  of  Jesus,  I  suppose. 

Why  does  He  not  use  His  power  to  impose  His  king¬ 
dom  upon  the  world?  Is  it  not  the  very  best  form  of 
kingdom  men  could  have?  In  fact,  the  language  used  to 
describe  His  coming  again  seems  to  indicate  the  use  of 
power  to  force  subjection.  Ah,  but  His  language  is  figura¬ 
tive  and  spiritual!  The  militant  figures  which  are  used 
to  describe  His  second  coming  simply  indicate  His  gentle 
ethic  suasion!  We  are  told  that  Jesus  will  never  force 
His  kingdom  upon  men,  for  did  He  not  refuse  to  do  that 
very  thing  when  here? 

The  second  advent  as  a  return  of  Jesus  to  impose  His 
kingdom  with  absolute  power,  “  is  the  sort  of  tyran¬ 
nical  procedure  we  will  not  permit  to  anyone  else.”  This 
implies,  of  course,  that  the  right  to  pursue  such  a  course 
would  not  be  even  yielded  to  Jesus;  but  then  He  would 
never  seek  it,  or  attempt  to  force  anything  upon  the 
world  (?). 


220 


iModernism 


“After  such  a  war  as  we  have  waged  against  brute 
force,  such  a  picture  of  Christ  as  a  celestial  Kaiser  or 
Crown  Prince  is  repugnant  in  the  last  degree,  and  demon¬ 
strably  false.  How  utterly  it  contravenes  the  teaching  and 
example  of  our  Lord!  Is  Jesus  ultimately  to  surrender 
to  the  temptation  He  fought  so  successfully  in  the  wilder¬ 
ness  and  at  Nazareth — ^the  temptation  to  ‘force’  this  king¬ 
dom  upon  men?  Never! 

“Of  one  thing  we  may  be  quite  sure,  God  will  never  force 
the  human  situation  nor  the  human  heart.  He  is  a  God 
of  peace,  not  for  a  dispensation  only,  but  forever  and 
forever.” 

Why,  Jesus  has  come  again  and  again  during  the  past 
centuries,  and  will  come,  and  come  again;  in  fact,  every 
great  revolution  of  human  order  witnesses  such  a  coming, 
each  time  a  step  in  advance  being  taken  until  the  great 
evolutionary  plan  reaches  its  consummation.  Listen  ! 
When  “we  look  back  upon  the  history  of  the  Christian  era, 
it  is  wonderful  how  this  view  of  history  is  vindicated”  ( ?) 
A  few  examples  are  adduced.  1.  The  overthrow  of  Jeru¬ 
salem,  A.D.  70.  “It  was  a  time  of  terrible  judgment  and 
suffering,  but  of  sublime  Christian  opportunity  .  .  .  The 
cloud  of  Israel’s  judgment  was  a  throne  of  glory  and 
power  for  Israel’s  rejected  Messiah  .  .  .  Thus  in  the  life 
of  that  generation,  as  Jesus  promised,  men  saw  the  king¬ 
dom  of  Heaven  coming  with  power.”  2.  The  fall  of  the 
Roman  empire.  This  effected  the  deliverance  of  the  na¬ 
tions  from  its  oppressive  and  corrupt  bondage.  Thus 
“again  the  moulds  of  custom  and  stereotyped  thought  were 
broken,  and  an  opportunity  of  fresh  entry  for  the  Truth 
of  Truths  occurred.  One  of  the  direct  results  was  an 
outburst  of  missionary  fervor,”  and  “the  foundations  of 
Western  Christianity  vrere  laid  afresh.”  Jesus  had  come 


The  Second  Coming  of  Jesus  221 

again!  (?)  3.  “That  terrible  event,  the  irruption  of 

Mohammedanism.”  Among  its  results  was  a  great  diffu¬ 
sion  of  learning,  its  re-birth  in  fact;  and  this,  we  are 
told,  led  straight  to  the  Reformation,  thus  “a  still  wider 
way  was  made  for  Christ  into  the  world.”  Think  of  it! 
Jesus  had  come  again,  this  time  riding  upon  the  dark 
clouds  of  the  Saracen  scourge  with  all  its  awful  evil  and 
bloodthirsty  fanaticism.  Thus  one  of  the  world^s  new 
births  took  place.  In  like  manner  we  are  to  think  of  (4) 
the  French  revolution  and  the  Napoleonic  wars,  and  fin¬ 
ally  (5)  of  “the  great  upheaval  of  our  own  time  .  .  .  This 
great  catastrophe,  springing  as  it  did  from  the  refusal  of 
Europe  to  build  upon  the  foundation  of  Christ,  has  never¬ 
theless  liberated  humanity  for  new  ideas  .  .  .  The  passing 
of  the  old  order  yields  hope  and  opportunity  for  the 
i  new.”  So  Christ  came  again  in  1914,  this  time  making 
the  horrors  of  German  militarism  and  ruthlessness  His 
chariot,  that  upon  the  ruin  wrought  by  these  destructive 
forces  a  new  and  virile  world-order  might  be  built,  worthy 
j  of  the  name  of  Christian!  Of  this  Modernism  is  the 
foundation!  How  awful  will  be  the  next  upheaval  needed 
’I  to  demonstrate  its  folly  and  sin,  showing  that  men  are 
i  still  blind  to  the  only  way  of  life  and  peace, 
f  After  all,  does  it  not  seem  that  force  must  be  used? 

Will  anything  else  prevail  to  establish  the  reign  of  right- 
j  eousness — the  kingdom  of  the  Son  of  Man?  But  it  must 

I  be  the  force  of  Divine  invasion,  such  as  both  the  Old  and 
I  New  Testaments  present  in  connection  with  the  actual 
j  coming  and  visible  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  Jesus  as 
f  Lord  of  lords  and  King  of  kings.  Any  other  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures  which  speak  of  the  Second  Coming  in 
J  relation  to  the  kingdom,  is  utterly  fanciful  and  childish. 


222 


[Modernism 


to  say  the  least.  What  we  have  just  considered,  the 
Modernist  viewpoint,  merits  stronger  condemnation.  Ethi¬ 
cal,  indeed,  it  is  made  to  be,  for  the  coming  is  realized 
in  “the  increasing  presence  of  Christ  in  human  life.”  For 
this  we  are  to  “watch;”  for  in  “the  distress  of  nations” 
we  are  to  see  “the  great  opportunity  for  Christian  re¬ 
construction,  and  find  the  glory  and  power  of  Christ  in 
the  cloud.” 

Finally,  “It  is  as  Son  of  Man —  as  the  very  soul  of 
humanity — that  Jesus  is  to  return.  His  first  incarnation 
was  individual,  His  second,  as  St.  Paul  daringly  taught, 
is  to  be  social,  ‘Ye  are  the  body  of  Christ.’  ”  So  the 
social  upheavals,  some  examples  of  which  have  been  given, 
are  the  travail-pains  of  humanity’s  birth  after  this  order 
— the  bringing  about  of  the  second  incarnation.  The  race 
is  to  become  incarnate — God  manifest  in  flesh.  This  is 
the  teaching  of  religio-evolutionary  Modernism.  Eveiy^ 
crisis  in  human  history  it  considers  a  step  forward  toward 
this  consummation,  and  at  each  such  period  Christ  comes 
to  help  onward  the  movement  up  to  Deity  of  the  former 
ape-like  man.  The  sinister  power  which  is  deluging  the 
world  with  the  blasphemous  literature  of  Modernism  is 
easily  detected  by  an}^  sincere  Christian  acquainted  with 
the  Word  of  God.  The  power  manifested,  and  the  voice 
heard,  leading  on  in  this  apostasy,  are  those  of  “that  old 
serpent,  called  the  Devil,  and  Satan.” 


CHAPTER  X. 


Conclusion:  a  brief  statement  of  Biblical  truth  as  to  God 
— Christ — the  Spirit — Israel — the  Church — creation 
and  nature — man^  his  nature,  fall,  salvation,  des¬ 
tiny — world-conditions  and  their  consum¬ 
mation — the  Second  Coming 


I. — God:  immanent,  transcendent 

« 

The  two  opening  chapters  of  the  book  of  God  are 
introductory  to  the  whole  volume.  In  majestic, 
yet  divinely  simple  language  they  delineate  the 
good  and  perfect  work  of  God,  unmarred  as  yet  by  the 
creature’s  failure.  The  remainder  of  the  Word  occupies 
us  with  the  marvelous  fact  (presented  in  various  ways, 
and  in  successive  steps  of  divine  revelation)  that  God  is 
now  at  work  to  retrieve  the  ruin  wrought  by  sin ;  and  that 
the  triumphant  end  is  to  be  the  establishment  of  the  ne^v 
heavens  and  new  earth  in  eternal  perfection  and  relation¬ 
ship  with  Himself,  all  being  grounded  upon  the  work  of 
redemption  accomplished  by  Christ.  Yet  all  this  has  been 
no  after-thought  with  God,  as  these  two  chapters  of  His 
book  clearly  testify  when  typically  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  the  New  Testament.  These  things  have  been  His 
eternal  purpose  and  counsel,  so  that  His  work  in  the 
material  creation  is  made  to  express  these  His  most 
cherished  thoughts.  He  is  thus  blessedly,  gloriously  im¬ 
manent  in  all. 

What  rest  it  gives,  what  soothing  balm  to  the  troubled 
mind,  to  turn  from  the  fallacious  theories  of  men  and  the 
wanton  complexity  of  their  wild  reasonings,  to  the  sub- 


224 


[Modernism 


lime  but  divinely  simple  words  which  open  these  chapters: 
“In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth !  ’’  Every  mist  is  gone.  The  beclouded  thoughts  of 
man  are  suddenly  and  perfectly  illuminated.  The  per¬ 
plexities  have  vanished,  one  and  all.  Man’s  search  after 
truth  has  ended;  here  it  is  found.  All  the  theories,  every 
one  of  which  left  the  enigma  of  creation  unexplained,  and 
its  secret  beyond  the  grasp  of  man,  are  useless  now;  God 
has  given  the  answer.  In  it  He  has,  as  it  were,  said, 
“The  world  by  Us  wisdom  shall  not  know  Me.  It  must 
wait  on  Me  to  know  what,  apart  from  My  willingness  to 
reveal  it,  is  unknowable.  I  will  be  the  Teacher;  only 
those  who  will  learn  of  Me  will  be  found  wise.” 

As  I  have  remarked,  sublime  simplicity  marks  these  two 
chapters.  Their  style  is  in  great  contrast  to  all  the 
legendary  accounts  of  the  nations  of  antiquity,  even 
though  the  latter  contain  certain  elements  of  similarity. 
No  obscurity  is  here,  nor  exaggeration;  weird  imagination 
plays  no  part.  Beautifully  simple,  yet  divinely  emphatic, 
their  language  is,“God  created,”  “God  said,”  “God  made.” 
It  is  God’s  work  all  through.  Even  a  child  may  under¬ 
stand.  Without  preliminary,  this  scriptural  record  brings 
mind  and  soul  into  immediate  touch  with  God.  It  pre¬ 
dicates  His  existence  before  all  creating;  therefore  His 
eternity  of  Being.  It  preaches  His  Almighty  power,  in¬ 
finite  wisdom,  absolute  will  and  perfect  goodness.  It 
refutes  atheism  and  materialism,  for  here  matter  is  cre¬ 
ated;  and  polytheism,  for  it  speaks  of  one  God  perfectly 
good;  and  pantheism  in  every  form,  for  God  is  not  crea¬ 
tion  but  the  Creator,  independent  of,  and  apart  from  crea¬ 
tion;  and  fatalism,  for  God  is  sovereign,  being  absolutely 
free  to  act. 


Conclusion 


225 


The  Spirit  of  God  broods  over  the  scene  presented  to 
us  here.  While  this  may  intimate  that  God  is  a  spirit, 
the  complete  revelation  of  this  Book  makes  known  the 
perfect  distinctness  of  the  Divine  Person  referred  to.  The 
light,  already  existent,  for  we  are  told  God  dwells  in  it, 
breaks  through  the  darkness,  giving  expression  to  the  mind 
of  God  who  spoke  and  it  was  done.  This  must  surely 
intimate  to  the  spiritual  mind  that  Word  and  Light  whose 
blessed  figure  becomes  so  familiar  to  us  in  the  fulness 
of  Divine  revelation;  He  who,  though  eternally  existent, 
came  forth  in  the  course  of  the  ages  as  the  Son,  who  as 
set  in  the  heavens  is  the  Ruler  of  the  eternal  day. 

Creation  comes  forth  into  its  perfect  order  at  the  bid¬ 
ding  of  the  Word,  and  man,  a  new  creature,  crowns  the 
glorious  work  of  reconstruction  and  creation.  To  man 
an  estate  is  given,  his  work  and  rule  defined,  his  consort 
presented.  There  follows  the  test  of  these  responsible  and 
moral  beings.  The  fall  results,  and  from  this  false  start 
the  great  world-system  develops.  Then,  too,  God  began  to 
work  out  His  purposes  through  succeeding  dispensations 
in  relation  to  both  the  earth  and  heavens,  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  dealing  with  the  former,  and  the  New  Testament 
chiefly  with  the  latter.  The  two  first  chapters  of  God’s 
Book  are  a  marvelous  preface  to  this,  for  in  the  light  of 
the  complete  revelation  given  to  us  in  Scripture,  in  their 
beauty  and  simplicity  they  are  seen  to  be  a  prophecy  of 
all  time.  They  carry  us  back  to  the  remotest  bounds  of 
the  past,  and  onward  to  the  transcendent  glory  of  the 
eternal  day.  The  material  creation  is  here  made  the 
mirror  in  which  the  image  of  the  spiritual  is  clearly  dis¬ 
cerned.  God’s  last  thought  is  seen  to  be  His  first.  It  is 
the  new  creation,  in  its  successive  steps  of  progress,  its 


226 


Modernism 


eternal  relationships  and  blessings,  that  is  before  God’s 
mind.  And  as  this  is  formed  out  of  creatures  who  are 
morally  and  spiritually  ruined  by  the  fall,  and  who  are 
transformed  by  the  spiritual  work  of  God  in  grace  and 
by  the  Spirit,  so  we  see  here  the  fair,  beautiful  and  perfect 
cosmos  fashioned  from  the  ruin  of  the  first  creation.  As 
Adam  was  set  over  the  scene  of  perfect  physical  and 
material  blessing,  so  Christ  is  the  Head  of  the  new 
creation,  and  of  Him,  as  I  have  set  forth  in  an  earlier 
chapter,  Adam  is  said  to  be  a  figure.  So,  having  this 
introduction,  the  volume  closes  with  the  heavens  and  earth 
filled  with  One  Presence  and  One  Glory  for  eternity,  a 
consummation  finally  reached  through  the  second  advent 
and  its  related  events.  The  promise  of  the  coming  closes 
this  wondrous  Book,  which  teaches  us  that  God  is  im¬ 
manent  in  and  through  all,  yet  ever  transcendent  to  all, 
and  revealed  to  us  in  the  unity  of  three  Persons — Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit — eternally  and  essentially  the  same 
in  nature  and  attributes,  coequal  in  all  glory,  and  ever 
acting  in  perfect  unison. 

The  phenomena  of  matter  and  mind  bear  witness  to  the 
immanency  of  God.  He  has  placed  His  indelible  imprint 
upon  all  creation,  physical  and  spiritual.  In  the  operation 
of  all' the  forces  and  agencies  which  come  under  our  ob¬ 
servation,  we  may  see  a  manifestation  of  God  as  ini- 
manent  in  all  His  works.  “In  Him  we  live,  and  move, 
and  have  our  being.”  He  is  the  Divine  Preserver  as  well 
as  the  Divine  Creator.  The  religio-evolutionist  may  admit 
a  special  and  supernatural  act  of  original  creation,  but 
thereafter  no  intrusion  in  any  form  is  allowable;  and  then 
to  escape  the  notion  of  an  absentee  God,  with  all  its  evil 
consequences,  he  becomes  a  pantheist,  with  bad  moral  or 


Conclusion 


227 


spiritual  results  for  the  unsatisfied  and  often  distressed 
heart  of  man.  By  the  grace  of  the  evolutionist  the 
Almighty  is  allowed  to  come  forth,  create,  give  life,  set 
in  motion,  and  look  on  the  scene,  but  then  He  must  retire, 
and  leave  the  whole  to  nature  and  its  laws.  Does  the 
engine  speed  along  the  rails  simply  by  the  natural  power 
of  steam?  There  is  a  hand  which  controls.  The  uni¬ 
verse  may  seem  like  a  great  machine,  moved  by  natural 
laws  and  powers,  but  God’s  hand  controls,  sustains,  directs 
the  multiform  activities  of  creation,  and  also  governs  in 
the  affairs  of  men  and  nations.  Eternity  alone  will  un¬ 
ravel  all,  making  apparent  the  fitness  of  each  and  every 
part  to  the  whole  vast  plan  of  the  eternal  purpose;  hence 
the  utter  folly  of  any  finite  creature  like  man  (who  can 
only  observe  an  infinitesimal  period  in  the  age-times)  to 
pronounce  upon  the  ways  or  wisdom  of  the  Infinite.  The 
testimony  of  Scripture  crowns  the  witness  given  by  all  the 
phenomena  of  matter  and  mind  and  the  events  of  history, 
in  as  far  as  these  things  are  subject  to  human  investiga¬ 
tion.  God  is  mirrored  for  us  in  all  the  departments  of 
creation — material,  physical,  spiritual — and  His  wondrous 
glory  is  given  perfect  form  and  expression  in  His  book 
of  perfect  revelation.  In  it  the  Divine  Personality  lives 
and  moves.  To  this  its  every  page  bears  witness.  In  it 
the  immanence  of  God  in  the  natural  realm,*  as  well  as 
the  moral  and  spiritual,  is  fully  revealed.  David  could 
sweetly  sing,  he  who  could  assert  that  the  Spirit  of  Je¬ 
hovah  spake  by  him  (2  Sam.  23:2),  saying  to  God, 


♦  Gen.  8:  22;  9:  13, 14;  Job  34:  13-15,  21-28;  36;  26  through 
ch.  38;  Ps.  104  and  147;  Matt.  6 :  26,  28-30 ;  Acts  7:48,49; 
17:  27,  28. 


228 


Modernism 


‘‘Thou  visited  the  earth,  and  waterest  it:  Thou  greatly 
enrichest  it  with  the  river  of  God,  which  is  full  of  water: 
Thou  preparest  them  corn  when  Thou  hast  so  provided 
for  it:  Thou  makest  it  soft  with  showers:  Thou  blessest 
the  springing  thereof.  Thou  crownest  the  year  with  Thy 
goodness;  and  Thy  paths  drop  fatness”  (Ps.  65:  9-11). 
Then  as  to  God’s  relation  to  the  affairs  of  men  and  na¬ 
tions,  there  could  be  no  more  conclusive  testimony  than 
that  given  by  all  the  prophets.  Human  history  and  des¬ 
tiny  alone  get  their  true  meaning  for  us  when  seen  in  the 
tight  of  the  Word  of  God.  Thus,  too.  He  is  seen  moving 
through  it  all. 

We  may  rightly  think,  then,  of  God  as  immanent  in 
all  creation,  but  He  is  ever  transcendent  to  all.  He  has 
formed  all ;  and  in  all  there  will  be  found  that  which  bears 
a  witness  to  Him;  and  all  is  absolutely  in  His  hand,  con¬ 
tributing  to  His  purposes;  He  sustains,  controls,  operates 
through  all.  The  pantheist  would  say  that  the  creation 
upon  which  he  looks  is  God,  but  Scripture  teaches  us  to 
recognize  God  in  not  that  all  is  God.  He,  as  man 
also,  is  distinct  from,  yet  manifested  in,  and  identified 
with,  all  his  works.  Man,  as  having  been  made  in  the 
image  and  likeness  of  God,  though  this  be  so  greatly 
marred  by  the  fall,  still  exhibits  that  which  may 
teach  us  lessons  concerning  God  and  His  relations  to  crea¬ 
tion.  God  who  is  thus  immanent  in  all,  yet  essentially 
distinct  by  virtue  of  personality,  is  so  because  He  is  omni¬ 
present,  omniscient,  and  omnipotent.*  These  are  attri- 

*Any  good  Subject  Index,  or  Topical  Text  Book,  of  the 
Scriptures  will  furnish  the  reader  with  a  large  number 
of  passages  in  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  which 
ascribe  these  attributes  to  God. 


Conclusion 


229 


butes  of  His  being.  Thus  He  is  transcendent  to  all  that 
in  which  nevertheless  we  may  find  the  fact  of  immanency 
manifested.  Nothing  in  the  vast  realm  of  creation  pos¬ 
sesses  such  elements  of  being,  though  in  all  He  who  does 
possess  them  intrinsically  gives  forth  some  expression  of 
Himself,  so  that  we  may  speak  of  Him  as  immanent 
in  all. 

Without  attempting  to  present  the  great  mass  of  scrip¬ 
tures  which  furnish  the  textual  proof,  easily  found  by 
any  who  desire  it,  we  can  without  fear  of  contradiction 
assert  that  all  Scripture  consistently  presents  God  as  cre¬ 
ating,  sustaining,  governing,  redeeming,  judging;  as  abso¬ 
lutely  perfect  in  wisdom,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and 
faithfulness;  having  life  in  Himself  underived,  inexhaus¬ 
tible,  He  being  self-existent  and  eternal;  unlimited  by 
time,  unchangeable  in  nature  and  purpose;  the  only  One 
absolute  in  sovereignty;  and  as  to  His  essential  being, 
invisible,  unsearchable,  incorruptible,  immortal,  immuta¬ 
ble.  The  unity  of  God  is  everywhere  emphasized,  while 
this  is  also  clearly  made  to  consist  in  the  truth  of  the 
three  Divine  Persons — Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit — dis¬ 
tinct  Persons,  in  distinct  relations  both  to  each  other  and 
the  whole  universe,  yet  separate  from  all  other  beings, 
each  having  ascribed  to  Him  the  names  and  attributes  of 
Deity.  The  full  revelation  of  this  is  given  in  the  New 
Testament;  the  Old  Testament,  however,  giving  unmis¬ 
takable  evidence  of  Trinity  in  unity,  a  striking  feature  of 
which  is  the  frequent  use  of  the  name  Elohirn^  by  which 
God  is  introduced  to  us  in  the  first  verse  of  His  book.  It 
is  a  plural  noun,  not  to  be  explained  by  the  Rabbinical 


*It  occurs  about  2700  times. 


230 


Modernism 


idea  of  it  being  a  plural  of  majesty,  for  God  Himself 
explains  its  meaning  by  making  use  of  the  pronouns  “We,’^ 
“Our,’’  when  speaking  of  Adam’s  creation.  Since  the 
singular  form,  Eloah,  is  also  used  many  times,*  and  natur¬ 
ally  suggests  the  thought  of  God  being  the  only  one, 
there  can  be  no  real  question  that  Elohim  signifies  plur¬ 
ality,  while  the  fact  that  it  is  accompanied  with  singular 
conjuncts,  prominently  conveys  the  thought  of  unity  in 
plurality.  This  is  conclusively  presented  in  Deut.  6:4: 
“Hear  thou,  O  Israel,  Jehovah  our  Elohim  is  one  Jehovah.” 

As  remarked,  it  is  in  the  New  Testament  we  get  the 
distinctness  of  the  Divine  Persons  revealed;  this  being 
consequent  upon  the  coming  of  the  Eternal  Son  and  the 
completed  revelation  given  by  the  Eternal  Spirit  through 
His  chosen  instruments — the  apostles  and  prophets  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  incarnation  commenced  the  dis¬ 
closure,  the  light  of  which  now  enables  us  to  see  many 
of  the  veiled  intimations  of  the  truth  of  the  Trinity  given 
in  the  Old  Testament.  The  glorious  God  revealed  to  us 
in  it  becomes  known  now  as  the  Father,  manifested  in  and 
by  the  Son,  who  not  only  speaks  of  Him  as  the  eternally 
Divine  and  distinct  Person  to  whom  belongs  all  that  the 
older  revelation  makes  known  concerning  Deity,  but  de¬ 
clares  Himself  as  one  with  and  coequal  to  the  Father,  as¬ 
cribing  also  in  unmistakable  language,  the  same  place, 
character,  and  personality,  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  fact 
that  this  unity  and  equality  of  the  Divine  Persons  is  re¬ 
vealed  beyond  any  serious  question  in  the  Scriptures, 
makes  the  truth  concerning  the  person  of  Christ  of  funda¬ 
mental  importance  from  every  possible  viewpoint.  To 
a  brief  summary  of  this  I  must  now  turn. 


*  It  is  used  over  50  times. 


Conclusion 


231 


II. — ^The  Person  of  Christ 

The  association  in  equality  of  the  Lord  Jesus  with  God 
the  Father  is  found  throughout  the  New  Testament.  He 
is  presented  as  a  distinct  Person,  existent  before  being  in 
this  world  as  man.  Not  only  pre-existent,  but  uncreated 
and  co-eternal  with  the  Father,  pre-eminent  over  all  cre¬ 
ated  beings  and  things.  Himself  the  Creator  and  Sustainer 
of  the  universe,  the  One  to  whom  the  names  and  attri¬ 
butes  of  Deity  are  applied,  for  whom  equally  with  the 
Father  universal  honor,  worship,  and  dominion  are  claimed. 
All  of  this  as  fully  and  absolutely  pertained  to  Him  in 
unbroken  continuity  during  His  sojourn  on  earth  as  ever 
before  or  since.  “From  everlasting  to  everlasting  Thou 
art  God.”  He  was  manifest  in  flesh,  perfectly  and  com¬ 
pletely  Man  in  all  that  that  means,  sin  apart. 

To  Him,  the  meek  and  lowly  One,  the  wonderful  name 
of  Jehovah  belongs.  This  marks  Him  as  not  merely  pre¬ 
existent  but  self-existent,  eternal.  Its  application  to  Christ 
may  be  traced  in  the  following  scriptures — Isa.  6 :  3  with 
John  12:  40,  41;  Isa.  8:  13, 14  with  1  Pet.  2:8;  Isa.  40: 
3  with  Matt.  3:3,  where  the  prophetic  word  is  applied  to 
John  as  the  herald  of  Christ.  Jer.  23:  6  with  1  Cor.  1: 
30;  Ps.  97:  9  with  John  3:  31;  Prov.  16:  4  with  Col.  1: 
16,17.  Compare  also  Exod.  3:  13-16  with  John  8:  58, 
linking  this  with  the  wonders  in  Egypt  which  are  stated  to 
be  for  the  purpose  of  manifesting  Jehovah  (Exod.  7:5). 

He  who,  wearied  with  His  journey,  sat  at  Jacob’s  well, 
who  wept  with  the  sorrowing  sisters  over  one  He  witli 
them  dearly  loved,  and  who  sought  refreshment  in  sleep 
after  the  toil  of  the  day.  He  it  was  who  created  all  things, 
upholding  them  by  the  word  of  His  power.  He  is  the 


232 


Modernism 


Creator: — Isa.  40:  28;  John  1:3;  Eph.  3:9;  Col.  1:  16; 
Heb.  1:  2,  3;  Neh.  9:  6  with  Col.  1:  17;  1  Cor.  8:  6.  He 
whose  ways  of  perfect  lowliness  and  grace  we  trace 
through  Gospel  narratives,  is  none  less  than  the  great 
‘‘I  AM,”  The  Eternal.  So  Isaiah  speaks  of  Him  (40: 
28),  and  Micah(5:  2) ;  John  1:1;  Heb.  1:  8-13;  Rev.  22: 
12,13;  Isa.  41:4;  44:6;  Rev.  1 :  8, 17, 18;  Rom.  9:5; 
Jer.  10:  10  with  1  Tim.  1:  17. 

He  is  OMNIPRESENT — ^John  3:  13;  14:  23;  Rev.  3:  20; 
Matt.  18:  20;  28:  20;  Mk.  16:  20;  Isa.  57:  15  with  Micah 
5:  2  and  Matt.  2:6;  Eph.  1:  23. 

He  is  OMNIPOTENT — Phil.  3:  20,  21;  Gen.  17:1  with 
Rev.  1:8;  Isa.  9:6;  John  10:17,18;  11:25;  ICor.  1: 
24;  2Tim.  1:  10. 

He  is  OMNISCIENT — ^John  2:  24,  25;  16:  30;  21:  17; 
Heb.  4:  12, 13  with  Rev.  19:  13;  1  Sam.  16:  7  with  Matt. 
9:  4;  11:  27. 

Mystery  it  is,  not  to  be  explained  by  the  ingenuity  of 
human  reason,  and  possible  to  be  known  alone  by  divine 
revelation,  that  the  Babe  born  in  Bethlehem’s  manger 
should  be  at  the  same  time  God  over  all  blessed  forever. 
This,  however.  Scripture  abundantly  affirms.  It  is  the 
Eternal  who  came  among  us  in  human  guise,  in  marvelous 
self-abasement  and  humiliation,  to  display  to  men  in  the 
intimacy  of  this  near  place  v\^hich  He  entered,  the  power, 
the  grace,  the  love,  the  truth,  in  short,  “the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead,”  which  dwelt  in  Him  (Col.  2:9).  Therefore  He, 
“being  the  effulgence  of  His  (God’s)  glory  and  the  very 
image  of  His  substance”  (Heb.  1 :  3,  R.  V.),  “the  image  of 
the  invisible  God”  (Col.  1:  15),  is  thus  the  Revealer,  “the 
Word  of  God”  (Rev.  19:  13).  Well  may  He  say,  “I  am 


Conclusion 


233 


the  Light  of  the  world”  (John  8:  12;  9:  5),  and  He  only 
is  “the  true  Light”  (John  1:9). 

It  is  John  who  so  fully  unfolds  the  divine  glory  and 
eternal  relationship  of  our  blessed  Lord.  How  amazingly 
comprehensive  are  the  first  three  verses  of  his  Gospel! 
Who  but  the  Spirit  of  God  could  indite  them?  The 
eternity,  distinct  personality,  absolute  Deity,  His  ever  be¬ 
ing  a  •  distinct  Person,  and  His  creatorship,  are  clearly 
affirmed.  He  it  is  who  “became  flesh  and  dwelt  among 
us.”  In  this  connection  His  title,  the  Son  of  God,  comes 
into  full  prominence,  not  only  in  relation  to  time  but 
eternity.  It  expresses  all  the  sweetness  and  intimacy  of  an 
eternally  subsisting  relationship,  the  expression  of  which 
has  come  out  in  the  Person  of  the  Son  in  incarnation,  so 
that  it  might  be  known  as  far  as  that  is  possible.  As 
born  of  Mary  He  is  called  “the  son  of  God”  (Luke  1 :  35). 
But  He  who  thus  came  is  “the  only  begotten  Son”  (John 
3:  16,18),  whom  God  gave.  He  was  this  before  He 
came,  for  “God  sent  His  only  begotten  Son,”  John  de¬ 
clares  (1  John  4:  9,  10,  14;  John  1:  14, 18);  thus  mark¬ 
ing  the  infinite  difference  between  Him  and  Adam,  who 
it  might  be  said  is  called  “the  son  of  God”  (Luke  3:  38). 
This  title  is  expressive  of  Him  as  being  ever  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  enjoying  the  ineffable  love  and  fellowship 
of  this  eternal  relationship,  knowing  the  Father  and  all 
the  secrets  of  His  love,  purpose,  and  counsel.  Of  this,  as 
the  Word  become  flesh.  He  is  the  Revealer,  for  the  glory 
beheld  in  Him  was  “the  glory  as  of  an  Only-begotten  with 
a  Father.” 

God  called  Him  “Son”  at  His  baptism  and  transfigura¬ 
tion.  Christ  repeatedly  applied  this  title  to  Himself. 
Many  distinct  personal  confessions  of  Him  as  the  Son  of 


234 


Modernism 


God  are  made  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the  whole  structure 
of  the  gospel,  the  building  of  the  church,  its  security, 
blessing  and  glory,  as  well  as  the  whole  blessing  of  that 
relationship  into  which  faith  in  Him  introduces,  rests  upon 
the  truth  of  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  being  the  Eternal  Son. 
This  golden  cord  is  woven  into  the  whole  fabric  of  New 
Testament  teaching. 

In  consonance  with  this  truth,  Christ  is  spoken  of  as 
being  equal  to  God,  and  One  with  the  Father.  With  this 
may  be  properly  linked  the  fact,  already  emphasized,  that 
the  title  “Lord'^  belongs  to  the  lowly  Jesus,  and  that  in 
the  sense  that  this  word  represents  “Jehovah’^  when  Old 
Testament  passages  having  this  name  are  quoted  in  the 
New.  But  it  is  not  only  connected  with  His  deity,  for  as 
Man  He  has  been  made  both  Lord  and  Christ  (Acts  2: 
36).  Not  made  as  though  not  essentially  this  before,  but 
rather  as  being  man,  He  is  placed  in  and  manifestly  in¬ 
vested  with  the  proper  form  of  glory  pertaining  to  Lord- 
ship.  One  result  of  this  will  be  universally  seen  when  He 
is  brought  into  the  world  again;  all  the  angels  will  be 
worshiping  this  Man,  to  Him  every  knee  must  bow.  To 
Him  all  authority  has  been  given,  and  all  things  have  been 
put  under  His  feet  (Matt.  28:  18;  1  Cor.  15:  24-28;  Eph. 
1:  20-23;  Phil.  2:  9-11).  With  this  of  necessity  is  asso¬ 
ciated  His  Judgeship — the  One  to  whom  all  judgment  has 
been  committed  (John  5:22,23,27,  30;  Matt.  16:27, 
25:  31-46;  Acts  10:  42 ;  2  Cor.  5:  10, 11 ;  2  Tim.  4:1,8). 

The  title  of  Christ,  linked  in  Peter’s  statement  with 
that  of  Lord,  is  of  wide  and  important  meaning.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  throughout  the  Gospels  and  Acts, 
with  a  few  exceptions,  and  also  in  many  cases  in  the 
Epistles  the  correct  mode  of  expression  is  ^Hhe  Christ.” 


Conclusion 


235 


This  may  intimate  that  one  of  the  chief  features  of  testi- 
m.ony  is  the  truth  of  Jesus  being  “the  Christ’’  (Acts  17: 
3;  18:  5).  It  means  “anointed,”  as  being  marked  out  and 
set  apart.  The  promise  of  One  coming  into  the  world,  to 
whom  this  title  would  be  applicable,  runs  throughout  the 
Old  Testament.  He  is  the  Prophet  of  whom  Moses  spoke; 
the  Priest  of  whom  Aaron  is  the  type,  and  whose  order  of 
priesthood  David  mentions,  and  He  is  the  King  of  whom 
the  royal  Psalmist  says  that  He  is  his  Lord,  the  great 
Deliverer  and  Redeemer  of  Israel,  the  Ruler  of  the 
nations,  the  “Ensign”  to  which  all  shall  be  gathered.  Ail 
converge  and  meet  in  the  Holy  Babe  of  Bethlehem  her¬ 
alded  by  the  angelic  host  (Luke  2:  11;  Isa.  9:  6,7),  so 
that  in  Jesus  is  found  “He  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law, 
and  the  prophets,  did  write”  (John  1:  45).  Simeon  re¬ 
joices  in  Him  as  “Salvation,”  “A  light  to  the  nations,” 
and  “The  glory  of  Israel;”  while  Anna  sees  in  Him  the 
One  who  shall  accomplish  redemption,  and  so  spake  of 
Him. 

He  came  then  in  these  characters  to  Israel,  2Lnd  suffered 
rejection  as  both  King  and  Saviour.  All  however,  adds 
confirmation  to  the  truth  that  He  is  “the  Christ,”  for 
He  C2in  say,  “Ought  not  the  Christ  to  have  suffered  these 
things,  and  to  enter  into  His  glory?”  To  this  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  bore  abundant  witness.  God’s  answer  was  the  res¬ 
urrection,  and  His  enthronement  in  heaven.  This  brought 
in  the  temporary  rejection  of  Israel  nationally  and  delay 
in  the  accomplishment  of  her  iMessianic  hopes  (Dan.  9. 
26,  R.  V.) ;  but  God’s  purpose  concerning  the  calling  of  a 
heavenly  people  was  then  revealed,  and  is  now  finding  its 
fulfilment.  In  this  wider  and  higher  glory  there  is,  never  • 
theless,  the  answer  to  the  prophetic  announcement  made 


236 


iModernism 


in  reference  to  Him  as  Jehovah’s  anointed  (Isa.  49:  4-6). 
Therefore  in  this  exalted  and  glorified  place  in  heaven 
Jesus  is  still  called  “Christ,”  anointed  as  the  Man  of  God’s 
counsels  to  fill  that  special  place  of  supreme  heavenly 
glory,  above  all  principality  and  power.  The  New  Testa¬ 
ment  sets  forth  the  blessing  and  glory  of  all  who  by  faith 
in  God’s  revelation  are  identified  with  Christ  in  this  place ; 
while,  of  course,  in  the  Old  we  find  linked  with  Christ 
Israel’s  hope,  position,  and  blessing,  with  that  of  all 
nations  through  her.  The  accomplishment  of  this  awaits 
the  great  and  glorious  earthly  reign  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
“the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.” 

I  have  called  attention  to  Jesus  being  made,  as  man, 
in  resurrection  and  exaltation,  both  Lord  and  Christ.  This 
may  well  lead  us  to  consider  that  other  title  which  so 
distinctively  marks  Him  out  as  Man,  and  which  He  made 
constant  use  of  in  speaking  about  Himself,  and  yet  which 
plainly  intimates  the  uniqueness  peculiar  to  Him — ^The 
Son  of  Man.  He  is  not  so  addressed  by  others,  and  this 
makes  it  all  the  more  precious,  since  only  His  own  blessed 
lips  gave  expression  to  it.  His  own  constant  use  of  it 
shows  how  His  heart  of  perfect  sympathy  and  love  de¬ 
lighted  in  the  near  place  to  His  creature,  man,  which  He 
had  taken,  and  which  this  title  expresses.  It  pre-eminently 
teaches  His  true  humanity,  that  He  really  possessed  the 
body,  soul,  and  spirit  of  man,  while  also  many  other 
glories  cluster  around  it. 

If  we  are  to  think  of  the  stupendous  gift  God  has  given, 
we  are  told  He  gave  His  Son,  His  ow/y-begotten.  If  we 
are  to  enter  into  how  the  Son  was  given,  we  are  told  of 
Jesus,  the  Son  of  Man,  His  privation  and  suffering.  His 
rejection  and  sorrow,  the  scorn  and  hatred  He  bore,  the 


Conclusion 


237 


sin-bearing  and  atoning  work  of  the  cross,  for  it  is  the 
Son  of  Man  who  must  be  lifted  up;  upon  this  rests  the 
eternal  welfare  of  the  creature,  yea,  of  all  creation. 

In  the  Lord’s  use  of  this  title  the  thought  of  the  king¬ 
dom  is  given  considerable  prominence.  He  constantly 
links  it  with  His  coming  in  glory  to  rule  and  reign,  thus 
connecting  the  thread  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  (Dan. 
7:  13, 14;  Ps.  80:  17;  Ps.  8)  with  Himself  in  this  charac¬ 
ter.  He  is  the  Establisher  and  Bringer-in  of  that  day 
of  universal  blessing,  when  the  crowning  glory  of  all  shall 
be  that  the  throne  is  filled  by  One  “like  unto  a  son  of 
man,”  that  out  of  the  meek  and  lowly  face  of  “That 
Man,”  shall  shine,  in  regal  glory  and  splendor,  the  full 
display  of  Godhead  power  and  majesty.  He  being  owned 
as  Lord  of  lords  and  King  of  kings.  To  think  of  the 
kingdom  in  connection  with  this  title  gives  it  the  widest 
possible  dominion.  It  goes  beyond,  though  it  embraces, 
His  title  of  “Son  of  David.”  He  is  the  rightful  Governor 
of  Israel,  in  special  relation  with  whom  He  will  occupy  the 
throne  of  glory  and  power;  the  nations  shall  be  given 
to  Him  as  His  inheritance,  and  He  shall  rule  them,  bring  < 
ing  in  their  blessing,  for  as  Son  of  Man  He  is  “the  Seed 
of  Abraham”  to  whom  all  the  promises  belong.  In  Him, 
therefore,  all  the  ntaions  shall  be  blessed,  yea,  and  the 
whole  of  creation  be  delivered  from  its  groaning  by  His 
blessed  rule.  Thus  in  Him,  to  the  fullest  extent,  shall  be 
accomplished  that  bright  hope,  the  first  gleam  of  which 
was  given  in  the  promise  of  “the  Seed  of  the  woman” 
(Gen.  3:  15). 

As  Son  of  Man  He  came  to  save  (Luke  19:  10),  to 
minister  and  give  His  life  a  ransom  (Matt.  20:  28).  He 
is  the  sacrifice,  whose  flesh  and  blood  (partaken  of  in  the 


238 


IModernism 


spiritual  sense)  imparts  life  (John  6:  53-56);  and  He  is 
the  appointed  Judge  (John  5:  27; Acts  10:  42;  17:  31). 
With  this  title  is  connected  the  place  of  “Mediator”  (1 
Tim.  2:5),  and  the  High  Priesthood  (Heb.  2:  14;  4:  14, 
15),  He  is  the  One,  as  Son  of  Man,  in  whom  God  is 
glorified,  and  God  will  glorify  Him  (John  13:  31). 

The  truth  that  Christ  was  in  the  form  and  constitution 
of  a  real  man  is  clearly  implied  in  the  title  just  con¬ 
sidered.  That  it  should  be  ^‘‘the  Son,”  however,  indicates 
that  He  is  distinct  from  the  many  sons  of  men  among 
whom  He  came.  Distinct  indeed  He  was,  for  no  taint  of 
the  fall,  no  consequence  of  it,  attached  to  Him.  In  Him 
humanity  found  its  perfect  expression,  to  the  full  delight 
of  God.  Thus  He  stands  out  in  the  greatest  possible  con 
trast  to  all  other  men — the  Man  who  stood  where  all 
others  had  fallen.  But  if  this  were  all.  He  must  abide 
alone,  and  His  very  perfectness  only  confirms  man’s  con¬ 
demnation.  Here  two  titles  may  be  considered  which 
teach  how  association  is  established  with  this  blessedly 
unique  Man  who  is  after  God’s  heart.  They  are  the 
Second  Man  and  Last  Adam. 

“The  first  man  is  of  the  earth,  earthy:  the  Second  Man 
is  of  heaven”  (1  Cor.  15:  47,  R.V.).  There  is  not  merely 
contrast  between  the  first  man  as  having  failed  and  the 
Second  who  is  perfect,  but  there  is  the  plain  intimation 
of  a  new  order  of  man — “the  Second  Man  is  of  heaven.” 
Further,  not  simply  two  men,  but  two  races  come  before 
us  (ver.  48).  So  there  are  those  who  are  linked  with  the 
Second  Man,  and  shall  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly 
(ver.  49).  Thus  He  is  the  Firstborn  among  many  breth¬ 
ren,  who  are  conformed  to  His  image  (Rom.  8:  29).  He 
is  the  great  typal  Man,  to  whose  likeness  the  new  hu- 


Conclusion 


239 


manity  shall  be  perfectly  conformed.  Of  course  the  ful¬ 
ness  of  what  He  is  as  this  is  seen  in  Him  in  resurrection 
— in  the  place  beyond  death  and  judgment,  the  place 
which  is  beyond  all  question  of  sin  and  its  consequences. 
Our  link  with  Him  in  this  place  of  perfect  blessing  and 
security  is  alone  through  faith  in  Him  as  revealed  in 
Scripture,  the  only  and  all-sufficient  Saviour  whose  pre 
cious  blood  cleanses  from  all  sin,  in  whom  Y^e  can  alone 
find  redemption,  justification,  sanctification,  righteous¬ 
ness,  hope,  eternal  life,  and  glory. 

To  be  of  this  humanity  of  which  He  is  the  great  type, 
v/e  must  possess  life  such  as  He  has.  “He  is  the  Eternal 
Life,  which  was  with  the  Father  and  was  manifested  to 
us.”  He  gives  to  those  who  believe  in  Him  eternal  life,  and 
this  life  is  “in  Him,”  as  John  makes  known.  From  Him 
it  flows  into  the  believer.  He  is,  then,  not  simply  the 
great  type  of  the  new  humanity,  but  the  Source  of  the 
life-power  which  animates  it.  Thus  He  is  the  Head  of  the 
race.  The  first  Adam  became  a  living  soul,  God  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  (1  Cor.  15:  45;  Gen. 
2:7);  the  last  Adam  (Christ)  became  a  life-giving  Spirit. 
Here  there  is  plainly  a  great  contrast.  To  each  member 
of  Adam’s  race  is  given  the  power  to  multiply  its  kind, 
but  it  is  not  so  in  the  new  creation;  life  is  communicated 
to  each  member  of  it  by  Christ.  “/«  Christ  shall  all  be 
made  alive.”  Eternal  life,  the  gift  of  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,  to  every  one  who  believes,  is  for  all  such, 
dependent  in  the  fullest  way.  Its  source,  spring,  satisfac¬ 
tion,  and  entire  sustenance  is  Christ,  only  and  ever 
Christ.  In  this  is  found  its  perfect  blessedness,  and  also 
that  which  makes  it  eternal,  for  while  it  is  in  us  as  God’s 
gift,  it  is  in  Him  who  is  God,  as  the  only  source  of  it 


240 


Modernism 


to  poor  sinful  creatures,  who  flee  from  the  inevitable  wrath 
to  come  to  take  shelter  under  the  precious  blood  of  Jesus, 
according  to  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God. 

I  cannot  close  this  section  without  giving  brief  consider- 
tion  to  the  threefold  title  of  First-born  which  Christ  bears. 
(Col.  1:  15, 18;  Rom.  8:29). 

Our  blessed  Lord  is  declared  to  be  “the  image  of  the 
invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of  all  creation”  (Col.  1:  15, 
R.V.).  The  first  statement  of  this  verse  unlocks  the 
meaning  of  this  title.  His  being  called  “the  image”  of 
God  implies  in  the  fullest  way  that  He  has  that  form  of 
being  which  can  be  seen,  contemplated  and  handled  (1 
John  1:1),  and  that  in  this  He  is  the  perfectly  exact  and 
complete  expression  of  God  as  to  glory  and  essential  be¬ 
ing  (Heb.  1:3).  This  brings  in  Incarnation,  God  mani¬ 
fested  in  flesh  (1  Tim.  3:  16).  Furthermore,  He  of  whom 
this  is  stated  is  the  One  by  and  for  whom  all  things  were 
created.  Hence,  if  He,  the  Creator  and  Upholder  of  all, 
enters  His  creation  in  creature-form,  “becoming  in  the 
likeness  of  men,”  He  is  in  this  form  Head  of  it,  and 
possess  by  right  every  firstborn  privilege  and  pre-eminence. 
This  involves  the  closest  possible  link  between  Himself 
and  creation,  both  animate  and  inanimate;  for,  as  already 
noted.  He  has  spirit,  soul,  and  body.  What  infinite  con¬ 
descension,  what  prophecy  of  widest  blessing  and  glory, 
what  assurance  that  the  healing  beams  of  the  Sun  of 
Righteousness  shall  reach  to  the  remotest  bounds  of  crea¬ 
tion,  so  that  not  only  shall  every  order  of  spiritual  intelli¬ 
gence  rejoice  in  the  blessing  and  glory,  but  the  trees  of  the 
wood,  the  little  hills,  and  the  mountains,  shall  sing  for 
joy,  and  the  desert  blossom  like  the  rose! 

The  firstborn  is  the  heir,  and  so  Christ  has  been  esta- 


Conclusion 


241 


blished  Heir  of  all  things  (Heb.  1:1).  He  will  enter  upon 
the  possession  of  His  inheritance,  bringing  it  into  the  full 
blessing  of  the  Headship  He  will  exercise  over  all  creation 
as  “Son  over  His  {i.  e.,  God’s)  house,”  the  all  things 
which  God  has  built  (Heb.  3:  4-6).  He,  then,  is  to  all  the 
image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  Representative,  Revealer, 
and  Interpreter  by  whom  alone  the  Eternal  can  be  known. 

That  He  should  be  all  this  in  the  intimacy  of  Manhood 
bespeaks  an  infinite  depth  of  tenderness,  compassion,  and 
interest  in  creation,  and  how  blessed  this  is  since  in  Him 
all  things  subsist  together  (Col.  1:  17).  This  is  a  subsist¬ 
ing  together  which  must  ultimately  show  that  the  bands 
of  His  own  ineffable  love  and  infinite  power  bind  all  in 
one  living  organic  whole,  of  such  an  order  that  it  bears 
everywhere  the  characteristic  marks  of  Him  who  is  Head 
over  all.  Underlying  this  gathering  together  of  all  things 
in  Christ  is  that  supreme  evidence  of  His  love — the  Cross, 
apart  from  which  the  full  meaning  of  His  firstborn  char¬ 
acter  could  not  be  made  good  to  creation.  The  taking 
of  the  place  which  this  title  signifies  involved  the  settle¬ 
ment  of  the  whole  question  of  sin.  He  must  taste  death 
for  everything.  God  must  be  glorified  in  the  place  where 
all  has  united  to  do  Him  the  greatest  dishonor.  The  Heir 
must  lift  the  blight  of  curse  and  judgment  from  off 
His  inheritance  that  He  may  bring  into  full  blessing. 
Scripture,  however,  makes  plain  that  this  does  not  in¬ 
clude  all  persons,  though  in  every  other  respect  the  ap¬ 
plication  is  of  universal  scope.  There  are  created  intelli¬ 
gences,  including  man,  who  do  not  share  in  the  bless¬ 
ing  and  glory  of  this  Headship,  and  who  are  subjects 
of  eternal  judgment  at  the  hand  of  this  glorious  First¬ 
born,  who  is  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  living.  “First- 


242 


[Modernism 


bom  from  among  the  dead’’  is  the  title  which  brings  out 
the  truth  of  His  Headship  in  relation  to  a  redeemed  com- 
pany  of  joint-heirs,  the  great  company  of  those  who  be¬ 
lieve  in  Him.  This  then  is  His  pre-eminence  in  a  narrower 
circle  within  the  universal  one  of  all  things.  In  that 
death  is  linked  with  it,  the  application  is  evidently  to 
men.  It  is  upon  them  that  death  has  been  passed  be¬ 
cause  of  sin,  opening  the  door  to  eternal  judgment  in 
separation  from  God.  Solemn  truth  of  divine  revelation, 
and  that  as  part  of  the  gospel,  let  men  cavil  as  they  will. 

“Firstborn  from  among  the  dead”  brings  in  then  a 
different  line  of  truth.  The  thought  of  His  death  is  surely 
of  prime  consideration:  but  we  cannot  think  of  that  with¬ 
out  bringing  in  what  is  connected  with  it.  We  must  con¬ 
sider  what  death  means  in  relation  to  the  creature.  In¬ 
troduced  in  relation  to  man  through  his  fall,  we  know  it 
as  part  of  the  judgment  which  is  his  due  because  of  sin. 
It  is  therefore  the  judicial  means  in  God’s  hands  for  the 
removal  of  the  creature  from  the  scene  of  his  rebellion  and 
wickedness,  and  is  the  introduction  into  that  unending 
sphere  of  existence,  the  character  of  which  is  governed 
by  the  course  and  conduct  followed  before  the  removal  of 
the  responsible  creature  from  the  place  he  occupied.  “By 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  and 
so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.” 
We  understand  then  that  the  wages  of  sin  is  death,  and 
that  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after  death 
the  judgment.  This  is  the  inevitable  result  for  the  crea¬ 
ture  who  remains  in  his  fallen  condition.  Death  in  this 
way  is  a  real  mercy  from  God  to  ruined  men.  Have  they 
not  fallen  and  filled  the  world  with  all  the  sorrow  and 
pain  of  sin,  with  all  its  bitter  fruits  and  suffering?  What 


Conclusion 


243 


if  they  were  allowed  to  live  on  and  on  without  death’s 
hand  to  smite?  Can  we  comprehend  what  this  scene 
would  develop  into,  and  the  awful  character  it  would  as¬ 
sume?  Words  would  fail  to  describe  it.  How  well  God 
knew  all  this,  and  brought  in,  therefore,  that  judicial  re¬ 
moval  of  man  by  death.  It  means  removal  into  judg¬ 
ment  from  which  there  is  no  escape.  Is  it  interposed 
that  such  a  thought  is  against  the  character  of  God  and 
His  love  for  the  creature?  It  is  not.  Does  not  the 
man  who  dies  a  sinner  remain  that  eternally  in  the  con 
dition  into  which  he  passes?  This  being  so,  can  judg¬ 
ment,  which  was  his  rightful  due  as  a  sinful  man,  be  any¬ 
thing  less  than  eternal,  since  he  remains  in  the  charac¬ 
ter  of  a  sinner  for  eternity?  The  holiness  of  God’s  char¬ 
acter  could  allow  of  nothing  less.  But  the  judgment  is  not 
only  the  due  of  sin,  but  is,  of  necessity,  also  the  means 
of  restraining  it. 

Death,  and  judgm.ent  after  it,  necessarily  bring  in  resur¬ 
rection  after  death  for  judgment — the  man  must  be  raised 
up  to  receive  the  execution  upon  himself  of  the  sentence 
of  his  condemnation. 

To  be  the  firstborn  from  among  those  who  are  under 
the  sentence  of  death  and  judgment,  would  necessitate  one 
passing  through  death,  and  coming  forth  from  it  in  the 
possession  of  a  life  to  which  the  power  of  death  and  what 
it  is  the  judicial  entrance  into — eternal  judgment — could 
never  apply.  The  one  doing  this  for  the  first  time  is  the 
Firstborn  from  among  the  dead.  It  is  plain  that  no  mere 
creature  could  arrive  at  this  position  of  blessedness,  be¬ 
cause  death  removing  him  as  such,  judgment  awaits  and 
his  doom  is  fixed.  We  are  told,  therefore,  that  Christ  is 
firstborn  after  this  order.  This  implies  that  He  passed 


244 


Modernism 


through  death  and  judgment  and  reached  the  other  side, 
as  it  were,  thus  manifesting  life  beyond  all  touch  of  death 
and  its  consequences.  This  required  Him  to  be  in  the 
creature’s  place  to  which  death  and  judment  attached. 
Has  not  He,  who  being  in  the  form  of  God,  counted 
equality  with  Him  a  thing  not  to  be  grasped  at,  taken  upon 
Himself  the  form  of  servant,  taken  His  place  in  the  like¬ 
ness  of  men,  and  having  been  found  in  fashion  as  a  man, 
humbled  Himself,  becoming  obedient  even  unto  death?  A 
man,  then.  He  was,  in  all  the  full  meaning  of  what  that 
implies.  He  grew  in  wisdom  and  stature.  He  could  be 
w^eary  at  times  and  sleep.  He  would  weep  with  the  sor¬ 
rowing,  and  be  grieved  in  His  spirit,  while  He  could  also 
rejoice  in  due  season.  All  perfect  in  their  exhibition  in 
Him  as  in  no  other,  but  nevertheless  showing  how  truly 
man  He  was,  pre-eminently  the  Son  of  Man. 

Sonship  implies  likeness  to  him  with  whom  this  relation¬ 
ship  is  connected,  and  to  be  a  son  of  man  mesms  to  be 
in  the  likeness  of  man.  But  Christ  is  not  a  son  but  the 
Son,  the  One  who  above  all  others  is  in  the  likeness 
of  man  because  according  to  God’s  mind.  What  then  is 
man  properly?  I  do  not  mean  as  fallen,  for  he  is  not 
that  properly — ^but  as  a  creature  of  God.  He  was  created 
in  the  image  of  God,  and  that  image  should  have  been 
manifested  in  him.  A  true  son  of  man  would  be  one  in 
whom  this  likeness  is  reproduced.  But  man  has  fallen,  he 
now  begets  in  his  own  likeness  and  image  (Gen.  5:  3); 
the  image  is  marred,  and  God  is  not  manifested  by  that 
which  He  had  made  in  His  own  image.  Therefore  Christ 
as  a  man  among  men  is  the  Son  of  Man,  because  in  Him 
we  find  the  likeness  of  man  according  to  God  in  full  de¬ 
velopment  and  perfect  exhibition. 


Conclusion 


245 


But  how  then,  since  He  was  so  perfect,  can  death  and 
ensuing  judgment  (which  He  must  pass  through  and  be¬ 
yond  to  be  the  Firstborn  from  among  the  dead)  attach  to 
Him?  Death  and  judgment  were  the  fruits  of  man’s  fall. 
But  Christ  was  without  the  taint  of  sin,  perfect  in  His 
every  part.  The  shadow  of  the  fall  had  never  been  thrown 
upon  Him.  He  was  the  unique  Man,  in  Himself  the  em¬ 
bodiment  of  the  thought  of  the  Creator. 

Here  comes  in  the  blessed  truth  that  meets  the  need 
of  the  creature  in  his  sinful  ruin.  Can  we  think  of  Him 
as  coming  into  this  world  simply  to  be  a  justification  of 
God’s  creation?  Surely  this  would  only  add  to  the  con¬ 
demnation  of  the  creature.  Man  had  ruined  himself  and 
come  under  judgment,  because  God  is  light  and  cannot 
look  upon  sin.  But  God  is  love,  and  He  will  not,  if  it 
be  possible,  execute  the  sentence  of  eternal  doom.  So  we 
have  a  note  of  deliverance  and  promised  victory  at  the 
very  beginning.  The  woman’s  Seed  is  to  bruise  the 
serpent’s  head.  And  this  develops  and  expands  as  the 
ages  roll  on,  voicing  the  one  essential  truth,  in  all  type 
and  shadow,  of  the  deliverance  first  promised. 

The  reason  for  all  this  is  plain.  We  have  said  that 
death  and  ensuing  judgment  are  the  creature’s  portion  as 
fallen,  amd  that  God  cannot  in  one  iota  abate  the  holiness 
which  claims  this  as  the  righteous  judgment  of  sin;  if  the 
creature  is  to  be  delivered,  these  must  be  borne  and 
endured  to  the  full.  Then  His  love  can  flow  in  an  unob¬ 
structed  channel  of  endless  blessing.  Who  then  shall  meet 
this  requirement  and  bring  deliverance  to  the  creature? 
One  under  the  ban  of  them  never  can.  It  must  be  one 
who  though  truly  a  man  is  yet  beyond  their  power  and 
applicability  to  him.  Who  has  ever  occupied  this  posi- 


246 


Modernism 


tion  but  the  peerless  Son  of  Man,  alone  qualified  to  be 
the  substitute  for  fallen  creatures  and  bear  what  was  their 
due  because  of  sin? 

Did  He  take  this  place?  He  had  claim  upon  life  beyond 
all  reach  of  death  and  judgment,  because  of  His  own  per¬ 
fection.  Did  He  become  the  Substitute  for  those  who  have 
forfeited  all  claim  to  such  a  life?  He  is  the  only  one  that 
could;  if  He  did  not,  there  is  no  hope.  Thanks  be  to  His 
all-worthy  Name,  that  when  the  agonizing  anticipation  of 
what  this  meant  for  Him  was  upon  His  soul.  He  said: 
‘‘Not  My  will  but  Thine  be  done.”  And  God’s  will  was 
for  the  blessing  of  His  creatures,  and  the  endurance  by 
Him  of  death  and  judgment  was  the  only  possible  way 
to  accomplish  it. 

We  know  Him  thus  as  having  been  made  an  offering 
for  sin,  making  in  this  way  full  and  perfect  atonement  for 
it;  effecting  propitiation,  that  is,  the  appeasal  of  God’s 
righteous  wrath;  and  as  a  result,  accomplishing  recon¬ 
ciliation  between  God  and  His  rebel  creatures,  insuring  on 
the  principle  of  faith,  to  whosoever  will  believe,  all  the 
blessing  His  hand  can  bestow. 

The  glorious  witness  to  all  this  is  in  resurrection.  He 
was  raised  up  by  the  glory  of  the  Father.  The  glory  He 
had  so  wonderfully  served  demanded  the  exaltation  of  the 
servant,  and  so,  He  having  made  purification  of  sins,  sat 
down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high  (Heb.  1: 
3).  But  in  this  very  resurrection,  the  passing  beyond 
death  and  judgment.  He  is  the  Firstborn  from  among  the 
dead.  He  has  come  out  as  the  triumphant  Victor,  and  the 
only  One  having  rightful  title  to  life  eternal  beyond  the 
power  of  death  and  judgment.  The  necessity  of  bearing 
these  devolves  upon  every  soul  of  man;  but  he  that  be- 


Conclusion 


247 


lieveth  on  the  Son  can  now  say,  He  has  endured  them  for 
me,  and  to  all  such  the  blessing  given  is  that  of  partici¬ 
pation  in  life  eternal  (John  3:  14-21,36;  5:  21-24;  Heb. 
9:  26-28;  1  Pet.  2:  24;  3:  18).  This  deals  chiefly  with 
the  significance  of  the  title  as  applied  to  Christ  personally; 
but  His  resurrection  is  also  the  God-given  witness  of  the 
acceptability  of  the  work  accomplished  when  He  was  de¬ 
livered  for  our  offences.  His  resurrection  is  the  justifica¬ 
tion  of  those  who  believe  (Rom.  4:  25).  If,  having  faith 
in  Him,  we  are  reckoned  as  having  died  with  Christ,  our 
Substitute  and  Sin-bearer,  then,  if  He  who  thus  took  our 
place  upon  the  cross  has  been  raised  up,  we  are  also 
looked  at  as  being  raised  up  with  Him  (Rom.  6;  Eph.  2; 
Col.  2  and  3).  This  puts  all  those  who  believe  in  Jesus, 
as  the  One  who  died  for  their  sins  and  rose  again,  in  an 
entirely  new  place  before  God.  They  have  newness  of 
life,  and  this,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  takes  them 
out  from  under  the  old  Adam  headship  to  which  death 
and  judgment  attached,  and  they  are  under  the  headship 
of  Christ  according  to  God’s  reckoning.  Christ  in  this 
way  is  not  only  the  Firstborn  from  among  the  dead,  the 
Firstborn  One  of  the  new  order  of  life,  but  He  truly  is 
also  the  Firstborn  among  many  brethren,  who  are  even 
now  morally  conformed  to  His  image,  and  in  glory  will 
be  so  displayed,  even  to  their  bodies  (Rom.  8:  29;  Phil. 
3:  20,  21).  This  company  of  “brethren”  includes  all  be¬ 
lievers  of  every  age.  As  Man  in  His  birth  and  life  on 
earth  He  stands  alone  in  the  peerless  beauty  of  moral 
perfection;  but  as  the  One  who  passed  through  death  and 
came  forth  in  resurrection,  there  is  established  the  link  of 
life  and  nature  between  Himself  and  those  who  believe 
on  Him,  and  such  He  is  pleased  to  call  “brethren”  (Matt. 
28:  10;  John  20:  17). 


248 


Modernism 


This  must  suffice,  yet  how  much  more  might  be  said.  It 
must  be  plain  that  there  is  not  a  single  truth  of  God’s 
holy  Word,  not  one  single  ray  of  His  glory,  not  one  fea¬ 
ture  of  His  wondrous  purposes,  but  there  is  a  link  between 
them  and  the  Person  of  Christ.  The  truth  of  His  Deity 
and  humanity  is  woven  into  the  entire  fabric  of  Divine 
revelation. 

III. — The  Person  of  the  Holy  Spirit 

Upon  the  first  and  last  pages  of  Scripture  we  read  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.  He  is  presented  to  us  as  a  distinct 
Person,  active  in  all  dispensations,  though  in  a  variety  of 
relations. 

The  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  personally  dis¬ 
tinguished,  yet  absolutely  coequal  in  every  respect,  and 
are  spoken  of  in  the  order  named,  are  active  in  special 
ways  in  relation  to  creation  and  man,  but  separate  from 
all  other  beings  in  the  transcendency  of  essential  and  eter¬ 
nal  Deity  alone  possessed  by  them. 

Only  of  a  distinct  person  can  we  predicate  mind,  love, 
intercession,  witness-bearing,  searching,  grief,  joy,  teach¬ 
ing,  fellowship.  To  the  One  of  whom  these  things  are  said 
the  names  and  attributes  of  Deity  are  ascribed.  His  spe¬ 
cial  titles  associate  Him  in  the  fullest  way  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son;  all  are  specifically  identified  with  the 
written  word  of  God  as  revealing  the  Truth,  inspiring  the 
instruments  used  in  its  communication,  and  giving  the 
language,  arrangement  and  subject-matter  presented  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  He  creates;  reveals;  strives  with 
men;  regenerates  those  who  believe  His  testimony,  such 
being  bom  of  Him  so  that  they  are  called  the  children  of 
God,  begotten  of  Him  by  the  Word  £ind  Spirit;  sanctifies 


Conclusion 


249 


through  the  truth;  is  the  alone-sufficient  Director  and 
guide  in  all  service  and  worship  according  to  the  mind  of 
God,  edifying  God’s  people,  testifying  of  Christ,  impart¬ 
ing  divine  joy,  love  and  hope  to  believers. 

In  this  dispensation,  since  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the 
Spirit  is  present  in  the  world  as  at  no  previous  time;  in¬ 
dwelling  every  believer;  forming  what  Scripture  speaks  of 
as  the  Church  of  God,  the  body  of  Christ;  and  accom¬ 
plishing  His  special  mission  to  the  world  and  God’s  people 
as  defined  by  the  Lord  (John  16:  8-15).* 

Unity  in  nature,  attribute,  prerogative,  and  purpose 
characterize  the  Divine  Persons,  while  also  to  each  of  them 
Scripture  assigns  what  is  specific  in  their  mutual  relation 
and  activity.  Counsels,  purposes,  will  are  attributed  to 
God  the  Father.  The  accomplishment  of  these,  whether 
in  creation,  redemption,  or  government,  is  in  the  hands  of 
God  the  Son.  He  is  the  Mediator.  In  perfect  unison  with 
all  these,  God  the  Holy  Spirit  takes  His  place  as  display¬ 
ing  the  Divine  energies  in  diverse  operations  throughout 
the  entire  creation,  whether  material  or  spiritual,  mundane 
or  celestial. 


*  These  remarks  give  the  most  meager  outline  of  one 
of  the  great  and  important  subjects  of  Scripture.  The 
reader  is  referred  to  an  excellent  book  on  this  theme  by 
Mr.  S.  Ridout — ^^The  Person  and  Work  of  the  Holy  SpiritJ* 
The  following  are  a  few  reference  passages  bearing  upon 
the  above  remarks.  Rom.  8 :  6 ;  16 :  26 ;  15 :  30 ;  1  Cor.  2:10; 
Eph.  4 :  30 ;  1  Thess.  1 :  6 ;  2  Cor.  13 :  14 ;  Acts  5:3,4;  1  Cor. 
12:6,11;  Heb.  9:14;  Gen.  1:26,  27  with  Job  33:4;  1  Cor. 
2 :  10 ;  Luke  1 :  35 ;  Rom.  15 :  19 ;  2  Tim.  3 :  16  with  2  Pet.  1 : 
21 ;  Gen.  6:3;  John  3 :  5,  6 ;  Heb.  10 :  15 ;  1  John  5:9;  John 
14:  16, 17;  16:  8-15;  Ps.  78:  17-21  with  Ps.  95  and  Acts  7: 
51;  Isa.  6  with  Acts  28:  25-27 ;  Rev.  1:  10,  20  with  2:  1,  7, 
8, 11, 12, 17, 18,  29;  also  in  ch.  3. 


250 


Modernism 


IV.— Man. 

Scripture  presents  man,  Adam  being  “the  first,”  as  the 
direct  and  special  creation  of  God.  He  came  from  the 
Creator’s  hand  perfect  in  constitution  and  form,  fully 
endowed  both  physically  and  intellectually,  and  surround¬ 
ed  with  every  material  blessing.  He  was  placed  as  head 
over  creation,  but  in  subjection  to  God,  as  the  one  prohi¬ 
bition  given  would  constantly  remind  him,  and  under 
God’s  government,  as  the  threatened  penalty  would  im¬ 
ply,  morally  responsible  to  yield  obedience,  accomplish 
his  service  in  the  appointed  sphere,  and  continue  in  com¬ 
munion  with  his  Creator.  All  of  this,  however,  was  to 
flow  from  willing  obedience  and  responsive  love  on  man’s 
part,  and  in  no  wise  to  be  the  result  of  power  arbitrarily 
exercised  by  a  Superior  Being.  It  must  be  plain  too  that, 
in  the  work  assigned  to  man  in  relation  to  the  garden,  the 
earth,  and  the  animal  creation,  God  was  providing  for  the 
development  of  the  earth  and  its  appointed  lord.  Through 
this  process  he  would  be  educated;  God  and  His  creation 
become  better  known  through  every  advance;  while  by 
reason  both  of  his  nature  and  place  man  was  responsi¬ 
ble  to  preserve  the  perfect  moral  equilibrium  undisturbed. 
Not  alone  was  the  man  to  enjoy  this;  his  consort  is  given 
him,  and  potentially  the  race  is  in  view.  What  illimitable 
possibilities  present  themselves  as  we  consider  the  perfec¬ 
tion,  order,  and  beauty  of  the  creation  described  in  Gene¬ 
sis  1  and  2!  In  the  light  of  it  there  is  no  adequate 
explanation  of  man’s  history  and  condition  as  we  now  know 
them,  except  that  which  Genesis  3  and  4  gives,  and  upon 
which  all  Scripture  builds.  Those  who  refuse  the  one 
must  necessarily  deny  the  other.  This  they  do,  accepting 


Conclusion 


251 


rather  the  fallacies  of  evolution  as  explaining  human  ori¬ 
gins,  not  because  after  all  they  possess  knowledge  superior 
to  the  Genesis  record  (for  on  their  own  showing  they  can 
produce  nothing  even  measurably  so  grand  in  its  sim¬ 
plicity,  so  comprehensive  in  its  brevity,  so  entirely  satis¬ 
fying  to  the  unbiased  mind),  but  because  the  pride  of 
human  reason  and  the  desire  for  self-deification  have 
blinded  their  minds  to  the  solemn  truth  of  man’s  fall. 
With  this  comes  a  distorted  vision  of  every  other  funda¬ 
mental  truth  of  Scripture. 

Scripture  teaches  that  man  is  a  triune  being — “spirit, 
soul,  and  body” — and  that  only  in  this  unity  is  he  con¬ 
sidered  as  complete;  although  even  when  separation  comes 
at  death,  the  man  is  still  spoken  of  as  living,  but  in  the 
unclothed  state,  a  condition  not  perfect,  to  remove  which 
resurrection  is  essential  that  he  may  again  live  in  the 
triunity  of  his  being.  This  is  not  affected  by  the  fact  that 
the  resurrection  body  will  be  necessarily  different,  for  even 
then  in  the  language  of  Scripture  there  is  a  maintained 
identity  (1  Cor.  15  :  42-44).  Annihilation  is  nowhere 
countenanced.  Man’s  special  creation  by  God;  his  fall 
and  consequent  alienation  from  God;  his  immortality;  his 
bodily  resurrection;  his  conscious  existence  after  death  and 
for  eternity,  in  either  a  condition  of  blessing  or  judg¬ 
ment;  his  absolutely  lost  and  impotent  condition  as  a 
sinful  being;  his  salvation  only  possible  through  the  inter¬ 
position  of  God  in  sovereign  grace,  through  Christ  and 
His  atoning  sacrifice;  his  blessing  alone  secured  to  him 
by  faitli,  which  appropriates  the  divine  provision  found  in 
Christ,  witnessed  to  by  the  Spirit,  and  revealed  in  the 
perfect  Word  of  God;  his  need  of  being  bom  again,  that 
spiritual  work  wrought  by  the  Spirit  through  the  Word  of 


252 


Modernism 


truth,  and  the  absolute  necessity  for  it  according  to  God 
that  relationship  with  Him  may  be  possible  in  the  power 
of  both  life  and  nature,  new  and  eternal — all  these  things 
are  plainly  and  simply  taught  in  Scripture. 

It  does  not  teach  probation  after  death,  but  everywhere 
presses  present  responsibility,  for  here  and  now  man  fixes 
his  eternal  status  in  weal  or  woe.  No  book,  like  God’s 
Book,  emphasizes  the  immense  solemnity  of  life  and  its 
grave  issues.  No  book  like  it  penetrates  into  the  darkness 
of  man’s  natural  condition,  tearing  away  the  mantle  of  his 
vain  pride  and  supposed  sufficiency,  to  expose  his  sinful 
nakedness  and  unavailing  self -efforts  to  hide  his  guilt, 
opening  to  full  view  the  deceitful  workings  of  his  evil 
heart  and  corrupt  nature,  leaving  him  without  excuse  as 
to  the  knowledge  of  God’s  mind  concerning  himself  and 
every  related  interest  in  the  world.  In  the  light  of  it 
men  must  either  loathe  themselves  and  turn  as  penitents 
to  God,  from  whom  alone  mercy,  salvation,  and  availing 
help  are  forthcoming;  or  they  will  scornfully  rise  up, 
steeled  in  hatred  to  that  which,  being  so  living  and  power¬ 
ful,  separates  soul  and  spirit,  joints  and  marrow,  discern¬ 
ing  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart,  and  reject  the 
testimony  of  God,  wresting  the  Scriptures  to  their  own 
destruction. 

Every  article  of  Modernist  teaching  is  in  contradiction 
to  these  verities  of  Scripture.  It  could  not  be  otherwise, 
since  evolution  is  the  foundation  upon  which  it  is  built. 
But  this  does  not  affect  the  imperishable  teachings  of 
God’s  Word.  His  solemn  woe  is  pronounced  upon  those 
who  take  from,  or  add  to,  it.  At  this  work  the  Modernist 
proves  himself  a  past  master.  But  God  is  not  mocked, 
and  whatsoever  a  man  sows  that  shall  he  also  reap. 


Conclusion 


253 


V. — The  Age-times  or  Dispensations 


Timothy  is  admonished  to  study  that  he  may  be  an 
approved  workman,  rightly  dividing  the  word  of  truth. 
One  great  feature  of  that  Word  is  the  periods  of  time 
which  it  marks,  during  which  God  has  manifested  Himself 
in  various  ways  and  in  special  characters.  I  can  not  do 
more  than-  suggest  the  scope  of  this  important  subject. 
It  embraces  the  whole  course  of  time  from  the  first  act 
of  creation  until  the  new  heavens  and  earth  are  brought 
in.  This  being  so,  to  have  some  understanding  of  these 
age-times  must  certainly  be  necessary  to  rightly  divide 
God’s  Word,  that  the  progress  of  revelation,  of  history, 
and  certain  special  purposes  in  relation  to  both  earth  and 
heaven  may  be  more  fully  realized. 

The  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis,  introductory  as  they 
are  to  the  whole  volume  of  inspiration,  furnish  us  with 
the  pattern  of  the  whole.  We  may  thus  trace  a  parallel¬ 
ism  between  the  work  of  creation  and  the  course  of  the 
age- times;  and  there  is  also  a  parallel  to  be  found  be¬ 
tween  that  work  in  its  successive  stages  and  the  moral, 
spiritual  features  of  what  is  called  new  creation  in  the 
New  Testament.  It  is,  however,  the  dispensations  which 
I  wish  now  to  consider,  and  in  the  light  of  the  parallelism 
just  mentioned. 


The  original 
perfect 
creation 

The  ruined  earth,  object 
of  God’s  work  by  the  Spirit 
and  through  His  Word, 
effecting  a  complete  change 
and  the  establishment  of  a 
new  order. 


Man  created 
perfect 
and  upright 

Man  fallen  and  morally 
ruined.  He,  too,  in  this  con¬ 
dition,  becomes  the  object 
of  God’s  work  by  the  Spirit 
and  through  His  Word, 
effecting  regeneration,  new 
creation. 


254 


[Modernism 


FIRST  DAY 

Light  is  introduced.  Darkness  and  light  are  distin¬ 
guished,  and  each  named. 

Dispensationally,  this  suggests  the  period  from  the  fall 
to  the  flood  which  closes  it.  During  this  age  man  was 
tried  under  conscience,  and  as  having  the  light  of  creation 
and  promise.  It  completely  demonstrated  man’s  utter 
lack  of  wisdom  or  power  to  direct  his  way  on  the  earth 
to  God’s  glory  and  according  to  His  will  (Gen.,  chs.  3-6; 
Rom.  1:  19 — 2:  16).  It  closed  in  ovenvhelming  judg¬ 
ment.  Throughout  this  age,  from  the  first,  two  families 
are  seen,  as  opposite  in  character  as  the  darkness  and 
the  light,  or  night  and  day.  In  what  is  recorded  there  is 
the  illustration  of  principles  which  abide  and  govern  among 
men,  who  are  still  divided  morally  into  these  two  great 
classes.  In  the  Cainite  family  we  see  the  way  of  the 
natural  man  and  his  world,  in  which  the  lust  of  the 
flesh,  of  the  eye,  and  the  pride  of  life  rule,  and  whose 
approach  to  God  is  after  his  own  thought,  in  his  own 
sufficiency — a  way  still  taken  by  many  and  surely  lead¬ 
ing  to  eternal  perdition.  In  Abel  the  way  of  faith  is 
illustrated,  and  God’s  acceptance  found  through  the  lamb 
of  sacrifice.  This  becomes  characteristic  of  the  Sethite 
family  in  which  Enoch  and  Noah  are  found.  I  need 
hardly  mention  how  the  New  Testament  takes  up  and 
applies  this  history. 

SECOND  DAY 

The  expanse  brought  in,  separating  the  waters,  esta¬ 
blishing  laws  essential  to  the  introduction  and  maintenance 
of  life  on  the  earth. 


Conclusion 


255 


To  this  the  period  after  the  flood  and  to  the  call  of 
Abraham  is  parallel  in  significance  (Gen.,chs.  8-11).  This 
is  the  trial  of  man  under  human  government  as  first  form¬ 
ally  established  by  God  in  the  hand  of  Noah.  Failure  is 
quickly  manifest  in  Noah  and  his  family.  The  result,  as 
the  race  develops,  is  again  the  demonstration  of  man’s 
utter  failure  and  departure  from  God.  He  can  neither 
properly  govern  himself  nor  his  fellow;  and  soon  idolatry 
prevails  throughout  the  nations,  while,  as  though  in  de¬ 
fiance  of  God  who  had  swept  the  earth  clean  of  man  and 
his  evil  works  in  the  flood,  men  nov/  determine  to  build 
so  that  their  name  shall  endure.  Again  God  judges,  and 
confusion  falls  on  human  pride  and  self-exaltation. 

This  period  is  marked  by  the  division  of  the  earth  by 
mankind,  the  formation  of  nations,  commencement  of 
empires,  and  so  the  establishment  of  government  by  which 
violence  is  at  least  repressed  (which  man  did  not  do  when 
simply  controlled  by  conscience) ,  laws  put  into  operation, 
affording  a  larger  measure  of  safety  and  protection  gener¬ 
ally.  How  this  answers  to  the  character  and  meaning  of 
the  work  accomplished  on  the  second  day  of  creation  must 
be  apparent  to  any  one  who  knows  what  the  expanse,  in 
the  physical  realm,  really  means  for  the  earth. 

THIRD  DAY 

The  earth  brought  up  out  of  the  waters  and  made  fruit¬ 
ful — the  period  from  Abram’s  call  to  the  first  coming  of 
Christ  (Gen.  12) :  to  the  cross).  As  on  this  day  the  earth, 
stable  and  enduring,  rises  out  of  the  waters,  so  now  in  the 
progress  of  the  ages  the  time  has  come  to  bring  up  out 
of  ‘‘the  peoples,  multitudes,  nations,  and  tongues,”  which 
are  like  the  turbulent  waters  (Rev.  17:  5),  that  people  and 


256 


Modernism 


nation  which  shall  be  set  up  as  superior  to  and  abide  pre¬ 
eminent  over  all  surrounding  elements — Israel.  Hence 
with  the  commencement  of  this  period  a  manifest  change 
takes  place  in  God’s  ways.  Though  He  has  visited  man’s 
pride  with  overthrow  and  scattering  at  Babel,  He  does 
not  change  the  already  existing  order  of  relations  among 
men.  All  is  permitted  to  go  on,  and  still  does,  manifest¬ 
ing  however  the  same  moral  characteristics  of  pride  and 
idolatry  in  some  form,  that  is,  the  rejection  of  the  true 
God  and  His  Word,  while  history  bears  witness  how  con¬ 
tinued  confusion  and  scattering  prevail  among  men  and 
nations.  As  a  consequence,  human  effort  is  ever  directed 
toward  unification  and  centralization  of  power,  which  time 
and  again  God  overthrows.  God  has,  and  will,  permit  this 
to  continue,  until  He  comes  who  will  reign  in  perfect  right¬ 
eousness  and  establish  His  universal  kingdom. 

God,  then,  begins  to  unfold  a  new  purpose  which  bears 
directly  upon  the  introduction  of  His  own  perfect  and 
glorious  King.  He  calls  out  from  the  mass  of  men  and 
nations  the  man  Abram  to  be  separate  from  kindred, 
kingdom,  and  idolatry,  that  from  him  may  spring  the 
nation  of  Israel  to  be  God’s  special  and  distinctive  peo¬ 
ple  among  all  peoples  of  the  earth,  and  to  be  head 
of  the  nations  under  the  government  of  Him  who  is  of 
Israel  after  the  flesh — ^Jesus,  the  Christ,  Son  of  Abra¬ 
ham,  Son  of  David,  the  Redeemer  and  Holy  One  of  Israel. 
In  Abraham’s  call  God  also  formally  sets  forth  those  prin¬ 
ciples  governing  relation  with,  and  blessing  from.  Himself, 
abiding  for  all  time  and  of  universal  application.  Hence 
Abraham  is  called  the  father  of  the  family  of  faith — not  of 
course  as  to  time,  for  faith  was  exercised  by  Abel,  but  as 
to  position  in  view  of  God’s  call  and  revelation  to  him. 


Conclusion 


257 


Certainly,  all  this,  in  its  evident  stability  and  fruit  for 
God,  is  like  the  work  of  the  third  day. 

The  inspired  history  of  this  great  period  is  an  unfold¬ 
ing  of  God’s  purpose  and  work  in  relation  to  the  world 
and  its  government.  Throughout  the  wonderful  books  of 
history,  prophecy,  and  song  which  deal  with  it,  and  open 
up  that  future  time  of  fulfilment  in  the  millennial  king¬ 
dom  of  the  Son  of  Man,  we  have  the  greatest  variety  of 
instruction  as  to  God’s  character,  ways  in  grace  and  judg¬ 
ment,  and  purposes  for  the  earth  and  all  nations,  while  we 
may  also  learn  principles  which  operate  through  all  dis¬ 
pensations,  God  having  written  these  histories  and  spoken 
by  His  servants  in  such  a  manner  as  to  illustrate  their 
meaning  and  enforce  their  application. 

This  whole  period  with  its  inspired  literature  is  of  eter¬ 
nal  worth,  for  in  it  God  is  manifested  in  the  history  of 
individuals  and  nations,  in  ordinances  and  ritual,  in  na¬ 
tural  and  supernatural,  in  nature  with  its  multiform  acti¬ 
vities.  Further,  man  in  what  he  is  and  does  is  fully  mani¬ 
fested,  whether  in  the  special  place  given  to  Israel,  or 
as  the  Gentile.  All  the  germs  found  in  Genesis  3-6  are 
seen  developed,  with  their  consequences.  This  is  made 
known  through  the  history  of  the  favored  people,  their  re¬ 
lations  with  the  Gentiles,  and  God’s  ways  through  all.  In 
short,  God  has  made  Palestine  and  the  adjacent  coimtries 
the  great  stage  on  which  Israel  and  the  surrounding  peo¬ 
ples  are  actors,  to  present  for  all  time,  and  eternity  too, 
the  manifestation  of  Himself,  His  ways  in  creation  and 
with  His  creature,  man.  What  He  thus  presents  in  this 
continuous  performance  of  many  centuries’  duration  (the 
last  act  of  v/hich  is  yet  to  be  set  in  motion),  is  an  abid¬ 
ing  lesson  of  many  parts,  given  to  all  created  intelligences. 


258 


Modernism 


This  can  never  lose  its  meaning  and  value,  for  the  Word 
of  the  Lord,  in  which  this  great  drama  is  written  for  us, 
lives  and  abides  for  eternity. 

In  it  we  pass  from  the  minutia  of  individual  biography 
to  the  great  world  movement  of  empires;  in  its  descrip¬ 
tions,  sometimes  marvelously  brief,  we  are  made  acquaint¬ 
ed  with  stupendous  actions  which  alter  the  whole  course 
of  world  history;  again,  it  tells  of  actors  both  heavenly  and 
earthly;  yet  whether  peasant,  priest,  prophet,  king,  nation 
or  empire,  individuals,  families,  tribes  or  peoples,  beings 
heavenly  or  earthly  of  the  highest  or  lowest  rank,  all  are 
seen  as  under  the  master  hand  of  the  Divine  Director — 
the  immanent  yet  ever  transcendent  God,  now  known  to 
us  as  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Many  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  lessons  of  this  great 
period  are  given  to  us  in  the  New  Testament.  That  is  the 
great  light  set  over  this  stage  of  human  history,  illuminat¬ 
ing  the  meaning  of  every  part  in  a  way  never  before  pos¬ 
sible.  In  it  we  have,  as  it  were,  the  sun  set  in  the 
heavens,  so  that  in  its  shining  all  may  be  clearly  discerned. 
This  leads  us  to  think  of  the  fourth  day;  dispensationally, 
the  present  period. 

At  the  close  of  this  third  period  there  stands  the  cross 
of  Christ — the  judgment  of  this  world  and  its  prince,  as 
we  are  told.  No  witness  could  be  more  conclusive  than 
that  which  the  cross  records  to  the  utter  moral  and  spirit¬ 
ual  ruin  of  man,  while  also  it  makes  evident  who  are  the 
world-rulers  of  this  darkness.  It  stands  as  the  consum¬ 
mation  of  the  preceding  ages,  during  which,  as  we  read 
their  history  in  the  inspired  Word,  God  tried  man  under 
the  rule  of  conscience,  under  human  government,  and  un¬ 
der  His  law  and  rule  as  established  with  and  exercised 


Conclusion 


259 


over  His  chosen  people,  who  are  thus  made  the  test  by 
which  the  whole  world  is  judged.  They  were  a  sample 
taken  out  of  the  whole  race  for  this  trial,  so  that  the  char¬ 
acter  and  condition  of  the  whole  might  be  determined 
(Rom.  3:  19,20),  Emd  since  God  chose  the  sample  we 
may  be  sure  it  was  the  very  best  He  could  select.  While 
this  was  true,  there  were  also  other  purposes  of  God  put 
into  operation  in  connection  with  the  selection  of  Israel, 
to  which  I  have  already  alluded.  Finally,  man  is  tried 
by  the  coming  of  God’s  Son  into  the  world.  The  result  is 
seen  in  the  Cross.  It  brings  a  great  break  in  the  course 
of  the  age-times.  There  the  bruising  of  the  woman’s  Seed 
finds  accomplishment;  the  announcement  of  which  stands 
at  the  portal  of  these  ages.  The  Cross  closed,  as  being  final 
evidence,  man’s  long  trial,  proving  beyond  the  shadow  of  a 
doubt  his  utter  ruin  as  a  fallen  creature,  his  rebellion 
against  God,  and  ripeness  for  eternal  judgment.  But  thanks 
be  unto  God  in  His  love  and  grace  that  Cross  becomes 
the  means  of  salvation,  the  way  of  life,  the  redemption 
which  delivers  from  all  judgment,  the  opening  of  the  door 
into  eternal  blessing  and  the  new  creation  to  all  those  who 
will  believe  in  Him  who  died  upon  that  cross  accomplish¬ 
ing  atonement,  glorifying  God  in  thus  vindicating  His 
righteousness,  satisfying  His  justice,  perfectly  manifesting 
His  love.  In  this  He  fulfilled  all  the  many  types,  fore¬ 
shadows,  and  prophecies  given  to  just  such  redemption 
glory  through  all  the  preceding  ages,  from  the  coats  of 
skin  provided  for  the  sinful  nakedness  of  man,  then  Abel’s 
lamb,  on  to  the  enactment  of  the  great  ritual  of  sacrifice 
established  in  Israel.  In  this  connection  the  Tabernacle 
and  its  system  is  a  great  lesson-book,  every  detail  having 
some  significance. 


260 


Modernism 


Once  the  eye  of  the  heart  is  opened  to  the  treasures  of 
the  Old  Testament,  such  views  as  we  have  considered  in 
relation  to  it,  and  so  highly  esteemed  by  Modernists, 
vanish  as  darkening  mists  which  could  rise  from  only  one 
source;  and  the  whole  system  of  Modernism  disappears 
like  some  incubus  of  the  night. 

FOURTH  DAY 

The  heavenly  bodies  set  in  order  in  relation  to  the 
earth  and  its  affairs. 

The  third  dispensation  closed,  then,  with  Christ  cruci¬ 
fied  and  laid  in  the  tomb.  The  fourth  day  of  Genesis 
opens  with  the  word  that  set  the  sun  in  the  heavens  with 
its  accompanying  train,  source,  and  centre  of  government 
and  blessing  for  the  creation.  The  fourth  dispensation, 
or  age-time,  comes  with  the  glory  of  resurrection,  the 
ascension  of  the  Son,  and  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Consequent  upon  this,  God  reveals  His  purpose  to  call 
out  a  people  for  His  name  from  both  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
to  whom  is  given  heavenly  place,  relationship,  and  destiny, 
in  contrast  to  the  earthly  place  and  portion  which  be¬ 
long  to  Israel,  and  which  are  particularly  revealed  in  the 
Old  Testament.  This  people,  now  identified  with  the  Son 
in  heaven,  form  what  is  called  the  Church  of  God,  the 
body  of  Christ,  made  known  only  in  the  New  Testament 
(Eph.  1-3),  and  particularly  in  the  ministry  of  Paul  (Col. 
1).  This  Church  is  composed  of  all  who  during  this 
period  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  revealed  in  the 
fulness  of  the  New  Testament.  Further,  in  agreement  with 
the  great  features  of  the  fourth  day  in  Genesis  we  have 
the  unfolding  of  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens  in  its  various 
aspects  in  relation  to  Christ  and  His  heavenly  place. 


Conclusion 


261 


This  fourth  dispensation  is  now  running  its  course.  Its 
completion  will  come  with  the  second  advent  of  Christ 
when,  as  the  act  initial  to  all  that  this  coming  involves. 
He  will  remove  the  Church  out  of  this  world  to  share  with 
Him,  its  glorious  Head,  the  place  of  glory  and  inheritance 
in  heaven. 

During  this  period  God  is  not  manifestly  dealing  with 
either  Israel  or  the  nations  as  He  was  during  the  past  dis¬ 
pensation.  The  world  is  being  allowed  to  pursue  its 
natural  course,  following  the  leadership  of  him  who  is  its 
god  and  prince,  though  to  the  full  consequences  of  this 
there  are  at  present,  and  will  be  until  the  Church  is  re¬ 
moved,  certain  God-established  hindrances  (2  Thess.  2). 
which  must  be  taken  out  of  the  way  to  permit  the  full 
development  of  man’s  will  and  Satan’s  power  during  the 
next,  or  fifth,  age-time.  Meanwhile,  through  the  gospel  of 
His  glory  God  is  forming  all  those  who  believe  it  into  that 
great  company  which  shall  be  caught  up  to  heaven  at  the 
Lord’s  coming  (1  Thess.  4).  During  this  time,  since  Pen¬ 
tecost,  that  company  is  called  into  separation  from  the 
course  of,  the  spirit  which  animates,  and  the  power  which 
rules  this  world,  subject  as  it  is  to  the  coming  judgments 
of  the  day  of  the  Lord.  The  character,  place,  responsi¬ 
bility,  and  destiny  of  this  company,  composed  of  those  re¬ 
deemed  through  faith  in  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  is 
the  chief  subject  of  New  Testament  teaching. 

FIFTH  DAY 

The  waters  and  the  expanse  are  made  to  teem  with  life. 
ITiis  brings  us  to  consider  the  first  of  the  age-times  which 
is  still  future.  It  will  commence  after  the  removal  of  the 
Church,  the  event  closing  the  fourth  period.  This  then 


262 


Modernism 


brings  us  into  the  great  field  of  prophecy,  and  the  Old 
Testament  becomes  our  guide-book,  but  now  as  seen  in 

the  light  afforded  by  the  prophetic  portions  of  the  New — 

» 

the  Olivet  discourse,  certain  passages  in  the  epistles  and 
the  Revelation  of  John.  The  book  of  Daniel  is  of  special 
importance  in  understanding  this  period. 

Israel  is  nationally  revived  during  this  coming  age; 
world-movements  come  to  their  climax;  the  confederation 
of  the  nations  in  well-defined  groups  takes  place;  the  final 
struggle  for  world-mastery  develops,  centering,  even  as  the 
last  great  conflict  really  did,  in  the  arena  chosen  by  God 
to  exhibit  His  earthly  acts  and  purposes,  the  land  of 
Palestine;  Antichrist  will  make  his  appearance  as  head  of 
the  revived  Jewish  nation,  and  confederate  with  the  Wes¬ 
tern  group  of  nations  called  by  students  of  prophecy  the 
revived  Roman  Empire;  then  will  come  the  desolating 
attacks  of  the  Northern  groups  (a  Germanic,  Slavonic 
and  Tartar  combination)  ;  the  Armageddon  of  the 
nations  will  be  fought;  as  of  old,  so  again,  acts  and 
judgments  of  supernatural  character  will  occur,  coming 
both  from  God  and  Satan,  whose  efforts  to  attain  universal 
dominion  will  reach  their  peak  in  this  coming  age.  To 
these  very  things  present  world-conditions  unmistakably 
point,  as  every  intelligent  and  spiritually-minded  student 
of  Scripture  prophecy  clearly  sees.  This  in  itself  is  a 
strong  indication  of  whose  word  it  is  which  thus  reveals 
the  future.  It  could  only  be  the  word  of  Him  who  knows 
the  end  from  the  beginning,  who  can  tell  the  former 
things,  and  declare  the  things  to  come. 

SIXTH  DAY 

The  co-habitants  of  man  on  the  land,  man  himself,  the 


Conclusion 


263 


head  of  the  creation,  are  brought  in,  and  with  this  we 
must  link  the  details  of  Genesis  2  as  describing  man’s 
special  place  and  dominion.  The  fifth  dispensation  will 
be  closed  by  the  revelation  of  Christ  in  power  and  great 
glory,  executing  judgment  in  the  world,  smiting  the  na¬ 
tions  who  have  forgotten  God,  and  destroying  those  who 
destroyed  the  earth  (2  Thess.  1,  2).  The  Head  of  all 
creation,  rightful  Heir  and  Lord  as  being  both  the  Son  of 
Man  and  the  Son  of  God,  thus  comes  upon  the  scene  to 
take  the  dominion  and  reign  in  righteousness  over  Israel 
and  all  nations  for  a  millennium. 

This  closes  the  course  of  the  ages.  The  seventh  day 
comes  (Gen.  2:  1-3),  in  connection  with  which  no  even¬ 
ing  nor  morning  are  mentioned.  It  is  God’s  rest,  type 
of  the  eternal  state  which  the  last  book  of  Holy  Writ  briefly 
describes.  It  is  fixed  in  its  character;  glorious  in  its  per¬ 
fection;  every  bar  to  creature  progress  removed;  nothing 
to  hinder  the  creature,  as  ever  abiding  in  dependence 
upon  the  Creator,  to  advance  in  the  joy  and  blessing  of 
the  fulness  of  God.  His  tabernacle  will  then  be  with  men, 
and  by  reason  of  His  fulness  being  infinite,  no  failure  in 
creature  satisfaction  can  ever  again  be  known,  no  want, 
no  selfishness,  no  strife,  no  sorrow,  ever  arise. 

In  the  midst  of  this  infinitude  the  eternal  habitation  of 
judgment  will  also  abide.  There,  in  separation  from  the 
presence  of  God  and  His  blessing,  ever  under  His  wrath 
because  of  sin,  those  must  be  who  would  not  have  and 
love  the  truth.  This  abides,  an  eternal  witness  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  Infinite  God,  Creator  of  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,  as  perfect  in  love  as  in  righteousness  and  holi¬ 
ness,  whose  sovereignty  throughout  eternity  will  be  found 


264 


Modernism 


to  be  perfect  in  every  detail.  Because  God’s  ways  are  in¬ 
scrutable,  man  may  cavil  and  storm  at  what  to  his  finite 
mind  seems  impossible  and  irreconcilable.  He  must  bow 
to  that  Divine  Sovereignty  whose  infinite  love  and  power 
are  forever  revealed  in  Christ;  or,  refusing  to  do  so  be¬ 
cause  unwilling  to  have  anything  beyond  his  finite  ken. 
there  is  nothing  left  for  him  but  that  outer  darkness  of 
which  the  unbelief  and  darkness  of  his  present  state  is  the 
prelude  and  prophecy  (Rev.  22:  11). 

VI. — The  Second  Coming  of  Christ 
AND  Related  Themes 

This  subject  is  of  the  widest  scope,  bearing  directly  up¬ 
on  Israel,  the  nations,  and  the  Church.  With  the  ac¬ 
complishment  of  this  universal  hope,  full  earthly  and 
heavenly  blessing  is  alone  realized.  The  judgment  of  all 
evil,  the  subjugation  of  every  evil  power,  and  the  bringing 
in  of  the  everlasting  kingdom  are  its  corollaries.  Also  the 
two  resurrections  are  related  events;  the  first  embracing 
all  the  just  and  being  unto  life;  the  second,  at  the  close 
of  the  millennial  reign,  being  that  of  all  the  wicked  dead, 
and  their  appearance  before  the  Great  White  Throne 
(Rev.  19:  20).  The  day  of  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  the  day  of  Christ,  of  God,  and  the  judgment  seat  of 
Christ,  all  mentioned  in  the  New,  are  connected  with  it. 

The  second  advent  comprises  two  distinct  acts;  first, 
Christ’s  coming  for  His  people  (IThess.  4:  13-18),  and 
secondly.  His  coming  with  His  people  (IThess.  3:  13; 
Col.  3:4).  As  a  lapse  of  time  occurs  between  these  two 
actions,  a  number  of  events  take  place  on  earth  during 
this  period,  which  bear  an  important  relation  to  the  second 
coming.  They  are  necessarily  preparatory  to  the  revela- 


Conclusion 


265 


tion  of  Christ  in  glory  with  all  His  saints,  while  the  re¬ 
moval  of  the  Church  to  heaven  must  take  place  first,  that 
these  very  events  may  commence  to  run  their  course. 

The  rapture  of  the  Church  having  taken  place,  these 
events  comprise:  the  revival  of  the  Jewish  nation  imder 
its  own  ruling  head  (already  this  is  well  in  view) ;  the 
making  of  a  covenant  between  that  nation,  once  again 
established  in  Palestine,  and  the  confederated  empire  of 
ten  kingdoms  (the  powers  of  western  Europe) — that  last 
great  empire  of  DanieFs  visions,  confessedly  the  Roman 
power,  now  non-existent,  but  to  be  revived  in  this  coming 
period  as  the  first  beast  of  Rev.  13,  the  second  beast  of 
that  prophecy  being  the  apostate  head  of  the  Jewish 
people,  the  Antichrist  and  lawless  one  of  whom  Paul  and 
John  speak  in  their  epistles,  who  sets  up  the  abomination 
of  destruction  spoken  of  by  Daniel,  and  then  by  the  Lord 
in  His  Olivet  prophecy;  the  revival  of  many  of  the  old 
nations  whose  names  are  so  familiar  to  the  Old  Testament 
student  (indications  of  which  already  abound  in  the  near 
East) ;  national  confederations  to  the  north  and  east  of 
Palestine,  already  foreshadowed  in  movements  now  taking 
place  in  Europe  and  Asia;  the  great  conflicts  between  the 
North  (Syria)  and  the  South  (Egypt),  detailed  in  the 
latter  part  of  Daniel  1 1 ;  the  assemblage  of  nations  against 
Jerusalem  foretold  by  Zechariah  and  Joel;  and  the  Arma¬ 
geddon  of  the  Revelation.  Amid  these  events  there  will 
be  the  faithful  Jewish  remnant  who  will  preach  the  gos¬ 
pel  of  the  kingdom,  and  suffer  great  persecution,  but 
whose  message  will  be  believed  by  many  Gentiles  who, 
with  believing  Israelites  of  that  time,  will  enter  the 
millennial  kingdom.  World-wide  judgments  will  fall 
upon  those  who  have  rejected  this  testimony  of  the  King’s 


266 


Modernism 


brethren  (Matt.  25:  31-46).  The  interval  in  which  these 
events  occur,  and  which  comes  between  the  two  ac¬ 
tions  of  the  Second  Advent,  is  that  period  during  which 
the  last  week  (the  70th)  of  Daniel’s  famous  prophecy  will 
find  complete  fulfilment.  The  Times  of  the  Gentiles  will 
then  come  to  an  end,  and  man’s  empires  be  succeeded  by 
the  universal  and  everlasting  dominion  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
as  prophesied  by  Daniel,  the  Lord  Himself,  and  John  in 
Revelation.  Then  too,  will  the  whole  false  religious  world- 
system  presented  under  the  figure  of  Great  Babylon,  with 
its  idolatry,  human  deification,  false  science,  and  vain 
philosophies,  be  overthrown  and  judged.  Christ  will  gather 
out  all  things  which  offend. 

This  will  be  the  time  when  all  the  golden  promises 
(Isa.  2:32;  Jer.  23:  30,  31 ;  Zech.  14,  etc.,  etc.),  of  the 
Old  Testament  will  be  fulfilled,  [Messiah’s  kingdom  and 
glory  being  manifested,  the  world  delivered  from  the  bond¬ 
age  of  evil  and  the  curse,  every  possible  natural  blessing 
being  ministered  to  mankind  under  the  beneficent  sway  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  reigning  in  righteousness. 

At  His  first  advent  our  blessed  Lord  performed  the 
great  work  of  atonement,  so  that  those  who  are  of  faith 
may  rejoice  in  accomplished  redemption  through  His  pre¬ 
cious  blood  (1  Pet.  1:  18-21).  But  this  also  laid  God’s 
righteous  basis  for  the  accomplishment  of  His  age-long 
purposes  in  relation  to  both  earth  and  heaven,  v/here  sin 
had  intruded  (Col.  1:  20).  By  accomplishing  the  work 
of  atonement  Christ  purchased  the  inheritance  of  all 
things,  thus  fully  meeting  every  claim  of  God’s  holy 
government.  Now  there  must  be  the  redemption  of  this 
blood-purchased  inheritance  by  the  exercise  of  divine  power 
(Eph.  1 :  9-14) .  This  is  triumphantly  effected  through  the 


Conclusion 


267 


second  advent,  and  since  the  Church  of  this  present  dis¬ 
pensation  is  to  share  in  a  special  way  in  this  glorious 
work,  she  is  first  removed  out  of  the  world  to  be  united 
with  her  glorious  Head  in  heaven,  so  that  with  Him  she 
may  come  forth  as  the  consort  of  the  Last  Adam,  to  reign 
with  Him  when  He  establishes  His  dominion. 

At  the  first  action  of  the  second  advent  all  who  have 
died  in  Christ,  that  is,  have  had  faith  in  God  according  to 
the  revelation  given  during  the  ages,  will  be  raised  up  in 
glory;  and  those  who  are  of  faith  and  living  on  the  earth 
will  be  changed,  united  with  those  raised  from  the  dead, 
and  as  one  company  enter  the  Father’s  house  according  to 
the  Lord’s  promise  (1  Cor.  IS:  23,  51-54;  1  Thess.  4:  IS¬ 
IS;  2  Thess.  2:1;  John  14:  1-3).  Then  at  the  second  act 
there  is  the  coming  forth  of  this  company  of  the  redeemed 
(Col.  3:  4;  Rev.  19:  11-14;  Zech.  14:  4-9;  Rom.  8:  18- 
22). 

Redemption  by  power  is  applied  in  several  ways.  First, 
to  the  saints  by  resurrection  and  the  change  of  which 
scriptures  already  referred  to  clearly  speak.  Then  Israel, 
revived,  is  purged  of  her  dross  by  those  acts  of  judgment 
which  destroy  the  apostates  of  the  nation,  and  the  saved 
remnant,  reconstituted  in  the  twelve  tribes,  enter  upon 
full  blessing  in  the  land  of  promise.  Then,  the  nations, 
likewise  first  purged  through  judgments,  are  finally  blessed 
and  thus  redeemed  from  corruption.  The  heavens,  too, 
are  purified  by  the  final  removal  of  Satan  and  his  hosts 
from  the  heavenly  places;  power  thus  effecting  their  re¬ 
demption  from  further  defilement  through  the  presence 
of  evil. 

Thus  every  promise  of  the  Old  Testament  shall  yet  be 
fulfilled  in  connection  with  the  Second  Advent,  as  every 


268 


Modernism 


statement  in  it  relating  to  the  first  coming  has  found  per¬ 
fect  accomplishment  in  the  incarnation,  humiliation,  and 
ministry  in  life  and  death  of  Jesus,  the  true  Messiah,  the 
Ruler  of  Israel,  whose  goings  forth  are  from  of  old,  from 
eternity  (Mic.  5:2),  and  who  is  coming  again  in  regal 
splendor  riding  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven,  accompanied 
by  the  holy  angels  and  His  redeemed  people. 

VII. — Conclusion 

The  Bible — God’s  book — is  an  inexhaustible  treasury. 
It  has  not  yet  been  fully  explored.  Though  we  may  think 
every  chamber  of  it  has  been  entered,  not  one  of 
them  has  been  fully  searched;  there  are  riches  yet  to  be 
found  by  the  diligent  soul.  Our  brief  survey  has  but 
touched  spots  in  this  vast  structure  of  Divine  revelation. 
Who  can  compass  it,  adequately  speak  of  its  glories,  fully 
show  its  perfections,  sound  its  depths  or  measure  its 
heights?  It  is  God’s  Word.  It  is  the  only  absolutely 
perfect  standard  of  knowledge  and  judgment  by  which  we 
may  know  God,  in  the  measure  that  this  is  possible  for 
finite  creatures,  and  know  His  works  in  every  sphere  of 
His  activity. 

It  sets  forth  “the  mind  of  God,  the  state  of  man,  the 
way  of  salvation,  the  doom  of  sinners,  and  the  happiness 
of  believers.  Its  doctrine  are  holy,  its  precepts  are  bind¬ 
ing,  its  histories  are  true,  and  its  decisions  are  immutable. 
Read  it  to  be  wise,  believe  it  to  be  safe,  and  practise  it 
to  be  holy.  It  contains  light  to  direct  you,  food  to  support 
you,  and  comfort  to  cheer  you.  It  is  the  traveler’s  map, 
the  pilgrim’s  staff,  the  pilot’s  compass,  the  soldier’s  sword, 
and  the  Christian’s  charter.  Here  Paradise  is  restored, 
Heaven  opened,  and  the  gates  of  hell  disclosed.  Christ  is 


Conclusion 


269 


its  great  subject.  Our  good  is  its  design,  and  the  glory  of 
God  its  end.  It  should  fill  the  memory,  rule  the  heart,  and 
guide  the  feet.  Read  it  slowly,  frequently,  prayerfully. 
It  is  given  you  in  life,  will  be  opened  at  the  judgment,  and 
be  remembered  forever.  It  involves  the  highest  respon¬ 
sibility,  will  reward  the  greatest  labor,  and  condemn  all 
who  trifle  with  its  sacred  contents.” 


t 


APPENDICES 


I. 

Some  critical  blunders 

II. 

Tables  of  References: 

1.  — References  to  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Prophets. 

2.  — Table  showing  in  detail  the  references  to  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  in  the  prophets  Amos  and  Hosea. 

3.  — References  to  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  with  tables. 

III. 

The  Genuineness  of  John^s  Gospel. 

IV. 

^‘The  New  Testament  To-day” 


APPENDIX  I. 

Some  critical  blunders 

These  have  been  exposed  from  many  sources  in  re¬ 
cent  years,  and  volumes  have  been  written  giving 
in  detail  the  many  confirmations  of  Scripture  which 
have  come  through  the  patient  labor  of  many  hands. 

I  here  mention  only  a  handful  as  a  sample. 

1.  The  narrative  of  Gen.  14  used  to  be  dismissed  by  the 
critics  as  a  mere  legend,  utterly  impossible  as  a  piece  of 
history;  but  the  monuments  have  proved  the  credibility 
of  it  all. 

2.  The  Hittites  mentioned  in  Scripture  were  once  an 
object  of  critical  ridicule.  There  was  no  confirmation  from 
other  sources  of  such  a  people  or  empire.  The  Bible  must 
be  wrong.  But  recent  discoveries  have  proved  their  exis¬ 
tence  as  a  nation  of  considerable  prominence,  and  the 
scriptural  references  to  them  have  been  confirmed. 

3.  The  captivity  and  restoration  of  Manasseh  was  made 
a  very  serious  reflection  upon  the  value  of  Chronicles,  be¬ 
cause  these  circumstances  were  not  mentioned  in  the  Kings, 
and  it  appeared  to  contradict  what  was  known  concerning 
Assyria  at  that  time.  It  was  declared  entirely  unhistor- 
ical.  But  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  have  shed  new  light 
on  the  subject  and  reversed  the  verdict  of  the  critics. 

4.  Discrepancy  appeared  between  Scripture  and  Sen¬ 
nacherib’s  record  as  to  the  number  of  silver  talents  paid 
to  him  by  Hezekiah  as  tribute.  Scripture  says  300,  the 
Assyrian  records  give  800,  and  the  latter  of  course  must 
be  inerrant.  But  now  we  know  both  are  identical,  because 
there  was  that  ditference  in  the  standard  of  value  for  the 
silver  talent  between  these  two  countries,  Palestine  and 
Assyria,  which  made  300  correct  in  the  former  and  800  in 
the  latter.  In  both  countries,  however,  the  gold  standard 
was  the  same,  so  in  this  particular,  that  of  the  number  of 
gold  talents,  both  Scripture  and  the  Assyrian  records 
agree. 


Some  Critical  Blunders 


273 


5. The  critics  were  accustomed  to  ridicule  Daniel  as  un- 
historical  because  of  reference  to  Belshazzar,  and  certain 
official  titles  which  he  mentions,  but  discovered  tablets  and 
monumental  inscriptions  have  proved  their  correctness. 

6.  The  so-called  myths  and  legends  of  Scripture  are  re¬ 
ceiving  confirmation  as  being  reliable  history,  the  more 
exploration  and  discovery  proceed  in  lands  which  bear  a 
relation  to  the  Bible.  Thus  the  patriarchal  history  and  the 
early  chapters  of  Genesis  are  coming  into  their  own. 

7.  It  is  not  difficult  to  detect  the  critics  in  exegetical 
blunders  when  it  comes  to  an  examination  of  their  argu¬ 
ments  dealing  with  words,  phrases,  or  names  occurring  in 
Scripture  by  which  they  seek  to  support  their  theories  of 
late  origin  or  diverse  authorship  of  different  portions,  or 
to  prove  bits  of  sacred  history  without  question  unhis- 
torical  and  impossible.  Some  minor  examples  are  given  in 
Appendix  III. 

That  men  of  scholarship  and  learning  should  fall  into 
such  blunders  only  testifies  to  the  power  of  evil  which  is 
abroad,  producing,  where  faith  is  not,  an  intellectual  blind¬ 
ness  which  makes  them  its  easy  tools  to  accomplish  its 
sole  object,  that  of  discrediting  God’s  Holy  Word  by 
whatever  means  possible,  weakening  its  authority  over 
men,  and  as  a  result,  if  nothing  more,  the  bringing  about 
of  its  complete  neglect. 


APPENDIX  II. 


1. — References  to  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Prophets 

HERE  are  three  classes  into  which  these  references 
may  be  divided: 


***  1.  Direct  references,  those  in  which  events,  laws 

or  ceremonies  are  specifically  mentioned. 

2.  Allusions,  or  indirect  references,  made  in  great  num¬ 
bers  to  various  parts  of  the  five  books. 

3.  Similarity  of  language  or  thought. 

This  evidence  makes  it  certain  that  the  Pentateuch  must 
have  been  well  known  before  the  earliest  of  the  proph¬ 
ets,  or  in  other  words  before  the  middle  of  the  ninth 
century,  B.C.  This  refutes  the  idea  of  its  gradual  growth 
during  the  Josiah-Ezra  period,  by  piecing  together  certain 
fragments  of  legend,  law  and  ceremony  which  were  greatly 
elaborated  during  this  process  by  the  several  writers  and 
compilers  of  that  late  period.  Deuteronomy  is  generally 
considered  to  be  the  first  complete  product,  written,  say  the 
critics,  just  before  or  in  the  early  days  of  Josiah. 

If  the  Pentateuch  had  not  been  generally  known  and 
easily  referred  to,  the  greater  part  of  the  whole  proph¬ 
etic  ministry  from  Amos  (accorded,  with  Hosea,  the  earli¬ 
est  date)  to  Malachi  (sixteen  prophets  in  all)  would  not 
have  been  understood  by  the  people  to  whom  the  prophets 
gave  their  messages. 

In  a  volume  like  this  space  forbids  presenting  in  tabu¬ 
lated  form  the  large  amount  of  evidence  which  the  study 
of  these  references  afford.  They  have  been  found  in  all 
the  prophets,  and  are  distributed  among  all  of  the  five 
books  of  Moses,  each  one  receiving  testimony  from  the 
earliest  of  the  prophets. 

This  testimony  tends  to  show  that  not  only  was  the  his¬ 
tory  and  religious  economy  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch 


References  to  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Prophets  275 

well  known,  but  that  the  minds  of  these  prophets  were  im¬ 
bued  with  its  diction.  It  had  been  the  subject  of  their 
study  as  being  the  living  oracles  of  Jehovah  Elohim.  If 
this  'were  not  so,  and  at  least  true  in  measure  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  generally,  how  utterly  strange  this  phenomenon  would 
appear. 

Although  not  within  the  scope  of  this  work  to  present 
the  whole  of  this  evidence,  a  good  example  is  given  in 
the  tables  following,  which  set  forth  the  testimony  of 
Amos  and  Hosea.  In  the  same  way  the  Psalms  furnish  a 
great  field  from  which  may  be  gathered  abundant  refer¬ 
ences  to  every  book  of  the  Pentateuch.  Many  of  these 
must  be  accorded  a  date  prior  to  the  earliest  of  the 
prophets. 


■Rejerences  to  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Prophets  Amos  and  Hosea 


CSJ 


>» 

s 

O 

O 

<u 

S3 

a> 

P 


m 

(U 

E3 

iz; 


M 

S3 

o 

•  rH 
•pH 

O 

P 


to 

S3 

ns 

o 

X 


m 

•  pH 

Ui 

O 

CD 

O 


CO  ( 
(M  r^ 

•  •v  •• 

rt<  CO 

•  • 

(N 


<N  ' 
..  ’‘t- 
.. 


<M  •• 

.  ^co 

tHCM^ 


(M 


CoC<JlO 


(M 


(N 


'CO 

tH 

CO 

.. 


CO 

•  • 


o 

C<J 


<M  lO 
00  Ci 

t- 

•  • 

cq 


(M 

•  • 

tH 

CO 

•  » 

t- 


co 

CO 

Cl 

05  . 
..00 
00®^ 
05  •• 

T}< 


05 


ca 

rs  O 

n'^ 

od  +* 

”  0 

-a 

p  0 

mh  a> 

+->  ® 
Cm  |> 

o  5 


• 

C5 

CO  . 

• 

co«i4 

-M 

P 

CO  ''0<  • 

..05  00 

05  CO 

“^of 

05 

•  • 

»>  ^ 
ai 

r}< 

05  . .  .  • 

®  a 

XI  ” 

tH 

C0^rJ4 

•  • 

0 

05 

..<N®3 

CO 
t— f 

11: 

6 

0 
XJ  0 

K^rH 

C3 

•H* 

lO 
iH 
•  • 

CO 

05 


CO 

•  • 

o 

05 


05 

•  • 

00 


<u 

w. 

00 

CO 

•  • 

uo 

05 


CO 

05 

05 

•  • 

O 

05 


CO 

rH 

•  • 

Cl 


I 

CO 


CO 

05 


TO 

05 


•  * 

CO  ILO 

CO  .. 


co^ 

05  •£-• 
CO  > 


-  .  .  e- 

’  ®  S'" 

o  o  •- 
oJ 

■W  aj  ; 

P  rtX‘ 

P  bD 
0<  M  C 
O.M  a 
ai  fl  b 
_C  as  O  * 

■a 

aa;::; 

o  2Z- 
^  «5  s- 
co^  3: 

jjPl  a- 

a  ®5- 

a 


1 

1 

3: 

12 

a: 

•  0k 

5a  rH 

•i- 

w5  «: 
0  (U  c 

OH 

*^3  CO  +• 

«  C 

.. 

05 

XI 

sap 

C5t^ 

•  • 

..05 

10 

0 

10 

«.S| 

05 

V— y- 

o 

4-> 

<V 

<u 


o 

rja 

05 


9^ 

bo 

TJ 
0) 
t— t 

P4 


-4^ 

bO 

he3 


o 

!» 

S3 

oj 

o 

<0 

.jO 


o 

-tJ 

o 

'5  C5 
CO  «3 
_Q  •>-( 

CS  “ 

0^  !:i 
Phc-c^^ 


a 

-t-> 

O) 


•^4 

•  c3 

-M 


<u 


o 


I 

^  Ci\ 


2 
O  S 

CC  O  ^ 

O4  ^  ^ 

>*  'SlS  ^ 

<0  <U  p  -g  Qi  0) 
^  -jJ  ft  O  'a  -4-> 


o 

•+J 

<0 

Pk 

bO 

P 

o 

S-4 

.0 


«5 

«•-» 

(U 

Pp 

ft 

o 

ft 


P 

o  p 

tH  S 
05  . 


C5 

-t-> 

0) 

•V 

P 

O 

’Ti 

a> 


•  H-^  oT 

.  <y  > 

'p  cT^.  . 

*=irP 

.^2  p  o  w 

03  bOO) 

<u  P  P 

0)  05  O  p 

W  >>  ft 


.  p 

^  !>» 


ai 

P 

c 

o 

c 

w  ^ 

w  • 

S  • 

ft  • 

ft  05 

o  <v 
05 :5 
.P-5 

•4^  -M 


0 

P  r 
05  ^ 

k1  •'■ 

P  0 
«  ^ 
c 


M 

05 

?P 

O 


0 

>■ 


ta 

O 


■H^TlhlOCO  t-00  01  o 

..  T-< 

05 


rH  05  tH  05 
tH  tH  .. 

CO 


dr^  10 

•  • 
r*« 


^■s 

O  O) 

o  bO 

0)  ■T3 

ft  rs 

•r^ 

V 

rC!*H 

+3  o 

bO?:j 
^  c3 
CJXJ 

a 

w  cs 

-t-s 
W  CQ 

o_ 

£■3 

<!.2 


& 

o 

o 

CD 

;-4 


!3 

o 

o 


^  <u 


ffi 


«> 

s 

o 

<fH 

o 

Cj 

a> 

-4-3 


0? 

o  ' 


♦  rH 

o 

<u 

ft 

w 

o 

'O 

(U 

f=l 

s 

(U 

n3 

i=l 

o 

u 


fl 

(U 

•4-3 

M 

rC! 

o 

ra 

o 

■4J 

05 

■+3 

fi 

<v 

Pi 

<v 

rC 


rc: 

•+3 

o 

-*3 

T3 

<V 

f-i 

cS 

ft 

a 

o 

o 

W! 

;=$ 

rC 


03 

•pH 

rC; 

o 

•  rH 
pC! 


T5 

O 

O 

a 

o 


5:5 

CD 

O) 


pc; 

SiS' 


a 

o 

n3 
W) 

c 

•  rH 

p54 
C3 

5 

03 

a 

£i“ 

CQ  TO  = 

-H  (1) 

05  ^ 

rO 


«3 

o5 

Its 

o 


*H 

o 


^  W 

-  «3  CO  ^ 


I  rS 


^  g  _ 

—  jj  G 

£-5  <U 
fe<JrQ 


w 
5-( 

05 -r! 

l-H  CO 

OSpEj 


oK-^ 

a. 2 

o5  >■ 

03 


O 

43 


C 

a  ^5 
a^ 

bo -2 

s  ^ 

■  n  ft 


13 

C  .  . 

cO*^ 


a 

03 

>*9i. 


03 


43 

03 


O  0) 
^r£:i  - 

^  CO 

pH  ^  <D 

.S  c  bp 

05 

03 
03 

o5 


CO 
03 
03 

=  ■= 

il 

a  ^ 


<1^  T3 
03  S 
C  13 
O 


T3 

fn 

C« 


03 
O 

^  a 

§  a 

ft,<“ 
0) 


T5 

03 

> 

O 

a 

03 

54 

03 

o5 

pCj 

ft 

03 

03 

O 

*-i 

fi 

03 

pC! 


a 

o5 


'Ti 

03 

43 

CO 

•  rH 

03 

a 

o 

y 


CO 

CO 

o5 

CO 

bo 

Pi 


y  fH«H 

■5  CO  CO 

.  pQ 
W  ^  O 

p4ftP3p5  y 
rv'r3  ft  03 

90  gt-s 

I  03  5h 

I  «« 


CO 

03 

y 

5h 


y 

CO 

y 

,3P 


jgPlH  « 

rH  ‘rH 


* 


y  •}-  •i-t* 
Xi 

43 


PJft 


y 

y  ^  ®5 
rtcosy 


a 

o 

o 

o 

-tJ 

0) 

O 


CO 


a> 

•  • 

lO 


00 

• 

o 

o 

04 

04 

• 

00 

iH 

tH 

04  •• 

•  • 

•  • 

33 

31 

O 

CO 

_5  ..  w 
•  1*^  •  ••  •  •  <  « 

00  fet-COCi-S 

tH^(MCOCOJ5. 

«•  »  0„  •  •  •  • 

(M  00  (M  Tj< 

CO  tH  tH  04  CO  t 


CO 

04 


a 


.  ^00 
lO  T~t 

«0.-h(M^04^  .  . 

^  .«  04  0000' 

^  00  ^  04  «0  rH  t 

tH  ^^V-(  os  *• 
..«jj03  *-^00  045 

t>  LO 


O) 

u 

cu 

39. 

• 

O 

tH 

CD 

tH 

ft 

•  •  ' 

•  • 

• 

r-t 

lO 

CO 

.ft 

tH 

04 

u 

m 

ft 

o 

;  20:5. 

bO 

CO 

•"■^oo 

2^04 

•  p-t 

04 

•  • 

uo 

.-o  ■H’ 
t:-04tH 

0) 

17:7 

18 

26: 

tH 

••^CD 

00^04 

04 


CO 

CO 


m 

p3 

CD 

•  CO 

• 

00 

cd 

'73 

O 

tH 

•  • 

CO  ^  tH 

•  • 

•  •  .  _  •  • 

t- 

•  • 

Tl* 

to 

X 

W 

CO 

32 

15 

23 

CO 

28: 

19: 

CO 
04 
•  • 

lO 


t- 1- 
-04 

.. 

•  • 

^co 

04 


• 

tH 

04 

04 

^  •• 

rH 

••04 

04 

§3” 

00 

CO 

m 

•rH 

m 

Qi 

A 

0) 

O 


o 

TJ 

rt)  • 

•§ 

•  U1 

•  O 

§  “ 
r-H  W 


a>  t- 

^  O) 

a 

D  . 

<u 

2  ' 
a  w 

o3  ‘jH 

o  t> 


o 

-M 

a> 

0) 

a 

g« 

a;  ® 

!=!  g 


CJ 

-4-> 

0) 


•  Ai  ■■5 

•5  -i 

*,— I  *  “ 

&o^  a  ^ 

PJ  ^  0)  o 

t-^  +s  +3 


cc 

■^3 

O 

bO 


o 

-M 

0) 


•  -n3 

O  '5  +3 
O  ft  OJ  (tS 

— ~<  OS  ?-i  F— < 


■4J 

m 

a> 

•  fH 

ft 

OS 

rE3 

+3 

c3’S 


o 

-M 

a> 


w 

OS 


o 


OS  <u 
>•  ^ 


O) 

> 

*r-i 

Ph 

Cfl 


O  ^ 

^  CU^- 
-M  Oi 

w  P.  Q 
a  ^'71 

r*  ^  y 

?-i  o  ^ 
ftm  r£3  -(J 


Q  n3 


a 

S  w 
21  w 
^  o 
1  %  ^ 

c3  ft 
rCj  ft  P 


?H  03 

o; 
2  ft 

a^ft 
O  s 


T3 

P4 

o3*H- 

^  s 

•rft 


.TS 
0) 
0)  g 

•  r-l  Ci 

-t-3  03 
w  03 


pft 

U 


<u 
!> 
'  03 
:.ft 


too 

u 

4J 

OS 

ft 
0) 
-•J 
-1-3 
•  »-^ 

tl) 

> 

c3 

rft 


OpS3«Hr-H  t— tl-H  H-l 


CO  i 

•  • 

OS 

O  ft 

M  0) 

r-H  -»-> 

o  bO 
2 

CQ  O* 

s^tH 


e3 

0) 

OJ 

O 

W 


040  OSIOC-COOtH'^^IO  -nsco 
..iH  tH  tH  tH  iH  04  ,.  .. 

tH  ••  CO  'I* 

04 


''3<  O  W  t-f  CO  O  04C0  04 

tH  iH  iH  ..  tH  iH  tH 

•  •  •  •  •  • 

IjO  t-  00 


CO'^X 
tH  tH 


(MLO 
CO  CO 

•  •  •  • 

00  00 


CO 

(N 

•  • 

Oi 

cq 


CJ 

O)  • 
U5 

O  •• 

iH  CO 

..cq 

tH 

00 


lO  b- 

iH  00 
•  •  •  • 

00  00 
th  cq 


oco 


cq^ 
coTl 
.^cq 
uo  ^ 

tH  ♦  »» 

00  ;h 
••'oq 

b-  iH 

•  •  •  • 

cq  00 


US 

•  •  •  • 

cq  cq 

CO  CO 


CO 

05 

tH 

00 

1 

•  • 

f£> 

uo 

•  • 

•  • 

cq 

23 

12 

o 

•4J 

Q> 
*% 
cq 
cq 
•  • 
CD 

cq 


CO 

cdco^ 


CO  rH 

•  •  •  • 

oi  a 


cq 

'  Tf 

.. 

'  CO 

cq 


cq 

cq 

•  • 

CO 

cq 


CO 

cq 

id 

CO 

cq 

tH 

cq 

cq 

•  • 

•  • 

CO 

o 

cq 

• 

• 

05 

18. 

19; 

2,8 

«o 

cq 

•  • 

00  ^ 
c^tT 

•  • 

CO 

10: 

14: 

25 

32: 
8;  1 

cq 

05  CO 

cq  •• 

o 

••'CO 

lO 

•  •  •  •>v 

00  00 
cq  tH 


<y 


Ch 

<u 
g  O) 


s 

•  r^ 

o 

rQ 

O 

tSJ 


“  § 


o 
rC3 

-M 
CD 

^  o 

Cj  .  • 

^  «  rC?  • 

C 

§ 
5><h 

ate 


4J  O 

o  rc; 


•r)  . 

S  ° 

ci  (D 

(-H  W 


<v 

a 

<v 

o 

m 

<U 

CD 

S  J 

IS 

i  <u 


CD 

-tJ 

CD 


Cfl 

c3 
CD 

M 
W 
CD 

Ph 
P<  ^ 

T1 

^  ^*0 


CD 

-l-» 

CD 

'S  ^ 

ft  cs 
p  o 
b 


CD 

CD 


CD 

CD 

rP 

-(J 

:l 

■rS 


CD 

-M 

W 

cS 

CD  . 


..S3 
ft  c3'^ 

CD 


CD  'T3 

+J 

-rH 

O  ^ 
Jh  CD 


CD 

-M  rC3 
w  to 
CD  ^ 


cC  Dh 


ocqt-ooT~*oo  05CO  -^j^iPb-  05cq  co  •hi  uo  co  oo 


to 


•TO 

p 

c3 

ft 

•  rH 

rP 

cc 

p-l 

O 

pP 

CQ 


P 

o3 

o3 

P 

P 

o 

CD 

-U 


^  •  •• 

pP 

4->  lO 

•• 

P  o 

<1^  P 

s  s 

c3  =3 
O  W 

ri^r* 
o  o 

pQ  m 
CD'rt 

...  P 

w  I: 

••CO 
.  •-cq 

ls| 

--.s 

CD 

tn  •  tH 

•p. p-rP 

ui 

*>  O  >» 

pPwP^ 

CD 

pp  Oto 

-*g  s 
°5o 


CO 


^3.. 

•k 

jK  • 

-H  03 
CJ  «3 
P-i  CD 

^  P 
OD  ^ 

®  O 

P..^  t; 

p-rJ  CD  >» 
g  CD  ?H  4J  O  p 
O  s-i  _Q  •>-;  4J  .S 
>  CD  CD^^ 

='§«f|§ 

«2^S|S 

.  _  jj  «tD  P  C 

5gc§§^ 

"  s'lI-g-S  T 

P  S  o«^ 

!Tl 


fH 

no 


§1  ^  CD  ..W 

M.  *I0  ^  C! 

X<  >•  ‘p-i  M  .. 

9^  CD  nd  CD  *■  . 

OD  i>D  ••  S 

W  "^co 
P  cq 

••  (D  .  c 

CD  ^  W  + 

M  S'to  o^: 
^‘4j  o  whd 
5  M  X  CD  w  c 

•’-I  r.ri  4J  r 
sQHj 

•Td 
03  O 

-d  g  ^ 

S'43  CD.^ 
o  f^l^PprP 

(2  S^E' 

♦  ^  -H-C-OC 

o 
o 


O  1H 


cq 


CO 


» ■  I 

p 

o 


CD  c 

^  H 
CD 

P«f 

< 

03  . 


280 


[Modernism 


3. — References  to  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
New  Testament. 

Here  again  the  references  may  be  divided  into  the  three 
classes  already  mentioned.  They  are  of  great  number. 
The  following  tables,  while  not  presented  as  complete,  will 
illustrate  this  fact.  In  these  tables  the  letter  (6)  indi¬ 
cates  both  the  second  and  third  classes  of  references,  (a) 
being  the  first  class.  The  references  have  been  counted 
with  a  few  exceptions,  according  to  the  number  of  verses 
which  are  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament  passage.  The 
tables  have  been  arranged  as  here  given  because  it  was 
found  that  to  give  chapter  and  verse  in  each  case  would, 
though  presenting  a  most  interesting  study,  occupy  too 
much  space.  I  trust  these  may  serve  to  show  how  all 
parts  of  Scripture  are  interlocked  in  testimony  and  mu¬ 
tually  dependent. 


New  Testament 
Books 


The  four  Gospels  . . 

Acts . 

Homans . 

1  Corinthians . 

2  Corinthians . 

Galatians . 

Ephesians . 

Colossians . 

1  Timothy . 

2  Timothy . 

Hebrews . 

James . 

1  Peter . 

2  Peter . 

1  John  . 

Jude . 

Revelation . 


References  to  the  Pentateuch 


Gen. 

Exod. 

Lev. 

Num. 

Deut. 

A. 

B. 

A. 

B. 

A. 

B. 

A. 

B. 

A, 

B. 

1 

13 

12 

9 

5 

15 

7 

26 

6 

4 

4 

11 

7 

1 

2 

7 

5 

2 

8 

2 

2 

1 

1 

4 

10 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

6 

16 

2 

6 

1 

1 

2 

6 

S 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

2 

11 

3 

1 

1 

4 

1 

18 

2 

6 

References  to  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  281 


References  to  the  Historical  Books 


New  Testament 
Books 

Joshua 

Judges 

&  Ruth 

Samuel 

&  Kings 

Chron. 

Ezra,  Neh., 

&  Esther 

A.  B. 

A.  B. 

A.  B. 

A.  B. 

A.  B. 

The  four  Gospels . . . 

10 

2 

Acts . 

2 

4 

Romans . 

2 

1 

2  Corinthians . 

1 

Hebrews . 

1  4 

2 

2 

1  1 

James  . 

3 

3 

Revelation . 

7 

1 

References 

to  the  Prophets 

New  Testament 

Minor 

Books 

Isa. 

Jer. 

Ezek. 

Dan.  Proph’s 

A.  B. 

A.  B. 

A.  B. 

A.  B. 

A.  B. 

The  four  Gospels  . . 

23  24 

6  2 

2 

1  14 

20  18 

Acts . 

9  3 

6 

Romans . 

19  3 

2 

2 

8 

1  Corinthians . 

7  4 

1 

1 

2  Corinthians . 

6 

3 

Galatians . 

1 

1 

Ephesians . 

1  1 

1 

Philippians . 

1 

1  Thessalonians  . . . 

1 

2  Thessalonians  . . . 

1 

1 

1 

Hebrews . 

1  3 

4 

3  1 

James  . 

1 

1  Peter . 

4 

1 

2  Peter . 

2 

1 

1  John . 

1 

Jude . 

1 

1 

2 

Revelation . 

64 

24 

49 

52 

29 

282 


Modernism 


References  to  the  Experience  Books 


New  Testament 
Books 


Psalms  Job  S.  of  S.  Eccl.  Prov. 
A.  P.  A.  P.  A.  P.  A.  P.  A.  P. 


The  four  Gospels  . . 

Acts . 

Komans . 

1  Corinthians . 

2  Corinthians . 

Galatians  . 

Ephesians . 

Philippians . 

Colossians . 

1  Thessalonians  . . . 

1  Timothy . 

Hebrews . 

James  . 

1  Peter  . . 

2  Peter . 

1  John  . 

Revelation . 


42  7 
13  4 
19 

5  5 
2 

1 

2 

2 


1 

21  2 

1  3 

1 

3  45 


1 


1 


1 

2 


1 

1 

1 

3 


2 


5 

4  1 
1 


1 

1 

8 

1  2 
1  3 

1 

1 

2 


APPENDIX  III. 


The  Genuineness  of  John^s  Gospel 
HE  Gospel  of  John  is  the  subject  of  special  attack 


because,  (1)  its  testimony  is  so  clear  to  the  Deity  of 


Jesus;  (2)  its  account  is  so  profoundly  spiritual; 
(3)  its  unmistakable  confirmation  of  miracles,  (4)  its  sup¬ 
port  of  the  supernatural  against-  all  pantheistic  notions; 
(5)  its  distinctively  different  presentation  of  the  Person  of 
Jesus  from  that  given  by  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  the  clain; 
being  that  there  is  hardly  anything  really  human  mani¬ 
fest  in  it;  (6)  its  supposed  unhistorical  character  when 
compared  with  the  Synoptists,  and  its  supposed  divergence 
from  them. 

For  over  100  years  this  warfare  has  been  pressed  assi¬ 
duously  in  both  attack  and  defence.  Great  names,  bearing 
a  reputation  for  learning  and  scholarship,  appear  on  both 
sides.  Perhaps  to-day  Schmiedel*  stands  out  as  chief  of 
the  destructive  school  of  criticism  upon  the  particular  sub¬ 
ject  of  John  and  his  writings. 

The  historicity  of  all  the  Gospels  is  of  course  in  ques¬ 
tion.  They  are  credited  as  being  at  best  but  the  magni¬ 
fied  accounts  of  certain  enthusiasts,  untrustworthy  because 
under  the  spell  of  the  worship  of  their  hero — Jesus.  Or 
they  wrote  not  as  historians,  but  as  presenting  Jesus  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  mind  of  the  early  Church,  so  that  the  figure 
we  see  is  the  one  suited  to  the  religious  needs  of  the  first 
century. 

The  external  evidence  for  the  authenticity  of  John’s 
Gospel  may  first  be  summarized,  and  that  as  working  back 
to  the  earliest  date.  Beginning  with  the  fourth  century, 
from  the  time  of  the  Oriental  Council  held  at  Laodicea 
(about  A.  D.  363)  to  the  Nicene  Council  and  the  days  of 


*  Prof.  P.  W.  Schmiedel,  D.D.,  Zurich.  See  his  article  on 
John  in  Ency.  Biblica. 


284 


[Modernism 


Athanasius  (about  A.  D.  325),  altogether  six  councils  bear 
testimony  to  universal  acceptance  of  the  Gospel  as  both 
apostolic  and  trustworthy.  Lactantius  of  Nicomedia(  about 
A.  D.  314) ,  Methodius,  bishop  of  Patara  and  Olympus,  also 
later  of  Tyre;  Victorinus,  of  Petavio,  late  in  the  third 
century;  Novatian,  of  Rome  (A.  D.  250-75) ;  Firmilian, 
bishop  of  Caesarea  (about  A.  D.  255) ;  Noetus,  of  Smyrna, 
Hippolytus,  and  Urban,  bishop  of  Rome,  all  of  the  first 
quarter  of  the  third  century;  and  Callistus,  of  Rome,  at 
its  very  beginning — all  made  use  of  this  Gospel  in  a  way 
confirming  its  authoritative  place  in  the  Church. 

Passing  into  the  second  century  a  large  mass  of  evidence 
presents  itself  beginning  (in  the  order  we  are  following) 
with  Tertullian  toward  its  close,  who  bears  testimony  to 
the  acceptance  and  authority  of  this  Gospel.  Polycrates, 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  writing  to  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome 
(about  A.  D.  190  or  195)  uses  expressions  traceable  to 
John^s  Gospel,  refers  to  John  personally  in  language  alone 
used  of  him  in  the  Gospel,  and  speaks  of  having  read  all 
Scripture.  This  is  not  unimportant  evidence  since  there 
is  little  doubt  of  John’s  final  residence  at  Ephesus.  Origen 
(A.  D.  186-254)  speaks  of  the  four  Gospels  as  received  by 
the  Church;  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  a  convert  from 
heathenism  and  of  great  learning,  uses  it,  and  accredits 
it  with  the  other  Scriptures  (about  A.  D.  180) ;  Irenaeus, 
bishop  of  Lyons  (A.  D.  177-202),  gives  testimony  to  John’s 
residence  at  Ephesus  and  the  publication  of  his  Gospel 
there,  which  is  important  because  of  his  connection  with 
Polycarp,  a  contemporary  and  acquaintance  of  John,  as 
well  as  of  others  who  knew  him  in  Asia  Minor,  where 
Irenseus  spent  his  early  life.  Athenagoras,  one  of  the 
earliest  Christian  apologists,  shows  familiarity  with  this 
Gospel  in  his  famous  Legatio  Pro  Christianis  (A.D.  177). 
Not  a  defender  of  the  faith,  but  a  heretic  of  the  Gnostic 
school,  Heracleon  (about  A.  D.  170)  wrote  a  commentary 
upon  this  Gospel;  and  about  the  same  time  ApolJinaris 
shows  acquaintance  with  and  recognition  of  its  author¬ 
ity.  At  this  period  too  Clement  of  Alexandria  was  receiv- 


The  Genuineness  of  John’s  Gospel  285 

ing  instructions  in  and  giving  himself  to  fullest  inquiry 
concerning  Christianity;  his  extensive  travels  and  wide 
acquaintance  gave  him  great  opportunity,  but  he  evidently 
found  no  reason  to  discredit  John,  for  he  gives  emphatic 
testimony  to  him  and  his  Gospel.  Also  during  this  period 
(A.  D.  160-170),  Celsus,  heathen  philosopher  and  bitter  as¬ 
sailant  of  Christianity,  who  makes  use  of  all  four  Gospels, 
does  not,  and  certainly  would  if  possible,  refute  their 
apostolic  origin;  in  fact,  he  rather  acknowledges  it.  He 
was  not  the  man  to  leave  any  point  untouched  which 
would  strengthen  his  attack,  as  would  the  proof  of  the 
spuriousness  of  any  of  the  Gospels.  The  heretical  Clemen¬ 
tine  Homilies,  also  of  this  date,  use  John’s  Gospel,  as  well 
as  the  Synoptists.  Any  heretical  use  of  these  books  would 
be  an  illogical  and  useless  procedure  if  they  were  not  uni¬ 
versally  acknowledged  as  genuine.  Would  it  be  of  any 
avail  to  use  what  was  not  fully  recognized  as  Scripture 
to  support  views  they  wished  the  Church  to  accept?  About 
this  time  also  Tatian  issued  his  Diatessaron,  a  harmony  of 
the  four  Gospels. 

About  A.  D.  160,  the  Canon  of  Muratori  appeared  at 
Eome,  the  earliest  catalogue  of  New  Testament  books.  It 
bears  consentient  testimony. 

Justin  Martyr  (A.  D.  138-150)  adds  his  voice  in  recogni¬ 
tion;  the  Peshito  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  generally 
placed  about  A.  D.  150,  gives  John  full  recognition;  about 
A.  D.  125,  Basilides,  a  famous  Alexandrian  Gnostic,  who 
evidently  in  early  life  must  have  been  a  contemporary  of 
John,  refers  to  this  Gospel  in  the  books  he  wrote  to  sup¬ 
port  his  heresy.  Further  testimony,  it  is  considered,  may 
be  found  in  several  other  literary  productions  dating  as 
early  as  A.  D.  106. 

In  the  light  of  this  evidence,  it  appears  certain  that 
from  the  first  this  Gospel  was  accorded  universal  recogni¬ 
tion  as  from  John  and  as  apostolic.  The  date  of  its  writ¬ 
ing  is  generally  given  as  between  A.  D.  90-100.  Now  until 
late  in  the  second  century  many,  both  in  and  outside  of  the 
Church,  could  by  experience  or  intimate  knowledge  go  back 


286 


BVIodernism 


tc  the  very  beginning  of  the  century,  and  some  into  the 
closing  decade  of  the  first.  In  view  of  this,  can  it  be 
reasonably  supposed  that  a  Gospel,  so  variant  in  style 
and  teaching  to  the  other  three  already  received,  could  be 
foisted  upon  the  Church  and  its  many  able  leaders,  unless 
the  testimony  to  its  genuineness  had  been  indubitable? 
Added  to  this  is  the  fact  that  heretical  teachers  used  it  to 
give  weight  to  their  views,  a  useless  procedure  unless  it 
was  universally  recognized  as  authoritative  and  apostolic. 
Its  appearance  and  origin  must  have  been  well  known  by 
many  living  at  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  while  at 
its  close  there  must  still  have  been  a  number  familiar 
with  the  facts.  Were  they  victims  of  an  imposture  in  the 
acceptance  of  this  Gospel?  If  the  able  opponents  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  the  heathen  world  could  have  shown  its  spurious 
character,  would  they  not  have  availed  themselves  of  this 
weapon  of  attack?  How  is  it  that  the  critics  of  this 
Gospel  can  produce  no  evidence  from  these  early  centuries 
of  a  denial  of  the  apostolic  authorship  and  of  the  uni¬ 
versal  acceptance  of  this  Gospel  as  genuine?  Had  there 
been  rejection,  or  even  question,  concerning  its  authen¬ 
ticity,  at  Ephesus  (where  it  is  believed  John  lived  and 
wrote)  or  elsewhere,  would  not  this  have  attracted  atten¬ 
tion,  and  received  consideration  from  the  writers  of  the 
second  and  third  centuries?  It  is  evident  that  it  would; 
whereas  not  until  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  do  we 
hear  through  Epiphanius  of  the  only  known  incident  of 
such  a  character,  that  being  the  attribution  of  this  Gospel 
to  none  other  than  the  heretic  Cerinthus,  a  contemporary 
of  John,  by  the  unimportant  and  little  known  sect  called 
the  Alogi  of  obscure  Thyatira.  This  would  seem  to  have 
been  so  unimportant,  in  fact  foolish,  that  it  is  given  no 
place  in  the  literature  of  the  second  and  third  centuries. 

The  striking  internal  differences  between  John  and  his 
brother  Evangelists  would  seem  quite  enough  to  cause  the 
rejection  of  this  Gospel  by  the  early  Church,  unless  it  had 
come  to  them  with  full  evidence  as  to  its  apostolic  author¬ 
ship,  and  hence  carrying  with  it  unquestioned  authority. 


The  Genuineness  of  John^s  Gospel  287 

The  objections  of  Schmiedel  are  wordy,  but  trivial.  As 
to  much  of  the  evidence  of  reference  to  or  quotation  of 
John’s  words  in  the  cases  above  referred  to,  he  seeks  to 
invalidate  it  by  arguing  that  there  is  the  possibility  of 
their  derivation  from  some  other  source  which,  he  says, 
‘Tf  we  choose,  we  may  suppose  to  have  been  accessible  to 
the  Evangelist  also.”  He  thinks  the  words  and  phrases 
which  show  manifold  agreement  with  John  may  easily  not 
have  come  from  familiarity  with  this  Gospel,  but  simply 
be  the  repetition  of  words  and  phrases  circulated  orally, — 
^‘they  passed  into  currency  by  the  channel  of  oral  tradi¬ 
tion,”  and  “as  they  circulated  they  received  an  ever  more 
pregnant,  pointed,  memorable  form,  and  the  writer  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  not  as  the  first  but  as  the  last  in  the  series 
of  transmitters,  set  them  down  in  a  form  and  in  a  con¬ 
nection  which  excelled  that  of  the  others,  and  thus  his 
work  came  to  appear  as  if  it  were  the  source  of  the 
others.”  For  him  it  could  not  have  been  written  until 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  some  forty  years 
after  John’s  death.  But  the  evidence?  (!)  This  consists 
of  the  suppositions  of  the  critics! 

Now  even  admitting,  as  Dr.  Cobern  says,  that  “the  dis¬ 
covery  of  rare  non-Christian  works  .  .  .  has  shown  that 
the  religious  notions  and  mystic  expressions  of  certain 
previously  unknown  Jewish  writers  of  Palestine  or  Egypt, 
of  the  first  century  and  earlier,  resemble  in  an  unexpected 
degree  that  of  John’s  Gospel,”  it  also  appears  evident  that 
at  best  the  resemblances  are  only  general,  for  we  are 
assured  by  the  same  authority  that  modern  critical  study 
— including  a  thorough  analysis  of  the  Stoic  doctrine  of 
the  Logos  and  of  the  ancient  literature  of  Gnosticism,  at 
Alexandria  and  elsewhere — has  proved  that  there  was  a 
much  greater  divergence  in  vocabulary  and  thought  be¬ 
tween  Philo  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  than  had  previously 
been  supposed.* 


*  The  New  Archeological  Discoveries,  by  Camden  M. 
Cohem,  D.  D.,  Litt.  D.,  1921,  page  623. 


288 


ifclODERNISM 


Is  it  credible  to  suppose  that  those  to  whom  reference 
has  been  made  as  furnishing  evidence  to  John^s  Gospel, 
were  simply  reproducing  such  current  phrases,  oral  or 
otherwise,  when  their  particular  purpose  was  the  explan¬ 
ation,  defense  of,  or  attack  upon  Christianity?  What  they 
would  use  and  refer  to  would  be  the  acknowledged  and 
authenticated  documents  upon  which  the  Christian  struc¬ 
ture  rested.  It  is  utterly  unfair,  to  say  the  least,  for 
Schmiedel  to  say  that  Justin  Martyr,  ^^regards  John — if 
indeed  he  knows  it  at  all — ^with  distrust,  and  appropriates 
from  it  but  a  very  few  sayings,”  and  that  it  “was  by  no 
means  on  the  same  plane  with  the  Synoptics”  in  his  eyes, 
“and  that  his  employment  of  it  is  not  only  more  sparing 
but  also  more  circumspect.”*  Now,  first,  Justin  refers  to 
the  Gospels  as  written  by  the  apostles  and  their  com¬ 
panions.  Mark  and  Luke  are  acknowledged  as  being  apos¬ 
tolic  companions;  what  then  must  the  conclusion  be?  In  his 
writings  he  does  not  express  such  an  attitude  as  Schmiedel 
states;  and  Justin’s  small  use  of  John  is  easily  explained 
by  the  fact  that  it  was  less  suited  to  his  particular  purpose 
than  the  Synoptics.  Further,  showing  the  exaggerated  em¬ 
phasis  Schmiedel  lays  on  anything  seeming  to  strengthen 
his  attack,  he  says,  “How  doubtful  was  the  recognition  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  is  shown  with  most  clearness  by  the  fact 
that  within  the  Church  an  entire  school  could  regard  it  as 
not  genuine,  and  even  attribute  it  to  Cerinthus”  (italics 
mine).  He  refers  to  the  Alogi,  that  obscure  and  unim¬ 
portant  sect  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  little  known 
to  history,  but  here  dignified  with  great  importance  be¬ 
cause  of  its  rejection  of  John. 

When  it  comes  to  a  consideration  of  the  internal  evi¬ 
dence,  and  the  marked  differences  from  the  Synoptists — 
found  for  example  in  the  greater  magnitude  of  the  mira¬ 
cles  John  records,  in  such  scenes  as  the  foot-washing, 
certain  incidents  at  the  cross  and  grave,  and  the  recogni¬ 
tion  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  from  the  very  first — “we  shall 


*  Ency.  Bihlica,  article  “John**  2550,  2546. 


The  Genuineness  of  John^s  Gospel  289 

be  safe  in  asserting,”  declares  our  critic,  “not  only  that  the 
Synoptists  cannot  have  been  acquainted  with  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  but  also  that  they  were  not  aware  of  the  existence 
of  other  sources,  written  or  oral,  containing  all  these  di¬ 
vergencies  from  their  own  account  which  are  exhibited  in 
this  Gospel.”  If  they  had  been,  it  is  confidently  asserted, 
“those  writers  could  by  no  possibility  have  passed  [them] 
over.”*  How  utterly  blind  he  and  his  school  are  to  special 
purpose,  divine  selection  and  inspiration,  controlling  each 
writer  and  giving  him  his  materials.  Yet  it  is  the  study 
of  these  Gospels  from  this  viewpoint  which  makes  them 
luminous  with  divine  meaning,  and  is  in  itself  the  greatest 
and  fullest  evidence  to  their  genuineness. 

John  is  charged  with  contradiction  of  many  of  his  own 
seemingly  precise  statements.  Schmiedel  is  the  authority. 
Chs.  7 :  27  and  9 :  29  is  an  example.  To  begin  with,  the 
speakers  are  different,  the  crowd  in  the  first  case,  the 
Pharisees  in  the  latter.  In  the  first  case  the  crowds 
doubtless  refer  to  the  current  Rabbinical  teaching  that 
though  Messiah  would  come  from  Bethlehem,  He  would 
then  be  hid,  none  knew  where,  and  then  suddenly  appear. 
In  the  other  case  the  connection  is  evidently  different,  as 
the  contrast  with  Moses  intimates ;  it  is  a  matter  of 
authority  as  a  teacher  and  the  source  of  it.  With  the 
crowd  it  is  rather  a  matter  of  origin.  Chs.  5:  31  and  8:  14 
are  cited,  words  of  Jesus  Himself.  In  the  first  it  is  the 
question  of  a  witness  not  being  true  in  the  sense  of  lacking 
confirmation  as  required  by  the  law  (Deut.  19:  15),  the 
actual  question  of  truth  or  falsehood  is  not  raised.  The 
Lord  at  once  goes  on  to  give  confirming  witnesses.  In  the 
other  incident  He  is  asserting  His  personal  truthfulness 
founded  upon  His  personal  knowledge.  Ch.  3 ;  26  declares 
all  the  people  flocked  to  Jesus,  and  in  ver.  32  that  no  one 
received  His  testimony.  But  where  is  the  contradiction? 
It  does  not  say  no  one  heard  His  testimony.  It  is  one 
thing  to  hear,  and  another  to  receive  as  here  mentioned. 


*  Schmiedel  on  Ency.  Biblica,  2541,  2540. 


290 


iModernism 


According  to  chapters  3:22,26  and  4:1  Jesus  bap¬ 
tizes,  but  in  4 :  2  only  His  disciples  do  so.  The  last  state¬ 
ment  being  emphatic  as  to  Jesus,  the  others  not,  are 
easily  explained  as  being  the  attribution  of  the  work  done 
by  the  disciples  to  the  Master  who  being  with  them  is 
thought  of  as  directing  their  activities.  Ch.  1 :  29,  35-42 
are  considered  irreconcilable  with  Mark  1 : 16-20.  But  why? 
The  latter  scene  takes  place  after  John  was  delivered  up 
(see  ver.  14),  while  the  former  incidents  took  place  while 
John  was  still  baptizing  in  Jordan.  Time,  place  and  cir¬ 
cumstances  are  entirely  different.  In  Mark  it  is  the  de¬ 
finite  call  to  service;  in  John  1  only  a  visit  together.  Ch. 
6:  3  and  15  are  cited,  Schmiedel  saying  that  John  speaks 
of  Jesus  going  up  again  in  the  mountain  (ver.  15),  yet  He 
had  not  left  it  since  ver.  3.  In  ver.  3  Jesus  and  His  dis¬ 
ciples  are  sitting  together  upon  the  mountain.  The  multi¬ 
tude  is  seen  coming  to  them.  That  they  came  to  where  He 
was  is  not  stated;  the  plain  inference  is  that  He  went 
with  the  disciples  to  meet  them  in  that  place  where  there 
was  much  grass  (ver,  10) ,  fed  them,  and  then  withdrew 
Himself  from  both  the  multitude  and  His  disciples,  return¬ 
ing  to  the  mountain  (ver.  15).  Certainly  the  place  of 
much  grass  and  the  mountain  can  not  be  the  same  when 
a  little  consideration  js  given  to  the  physical  characteris¬ 
tics  of  this  part  of  the  country.  Again  6 :  24  and  59  are 
contrasted  with  the  remark  that  a  discourse  begun  at  the 
seashore  (vers.  24, 25)  and  not  interrupted,  we  are  told 
in  ver.  59  was  spoken  in  the  Synagogue  in  Capernaum. 
Now  ver.  24  tells  us  the  people  came  to  Capernaum  seek¬ 
ing  for  Jesus ;  ver.  25  states  that  they  found  Him  on  the 
other  side  of  the  sea,  a  statement  of  geographical  import 
as  defining  along  with  ver.  22  the  location  of  the  miracle 
in  relation  to  Capernaum  to  which  the  people  had  come. 
But  it  in  no  wise  implies,  because  it  says  on  the  other 
side  of  the  sea,  that  He  was  found  at  the  seashore,  in  fact 
location  is  not  defined;  SchmiedeFs  assumption  is  gratui¬ 
tous.  Where  in  fact  they  did  find  Him  ver.  59  makes  plain, 


The  Genuineness  of  John's  Gospel 


291 


for  there  the  discourse  was  delivered.  He  was  found  in 
the  Synagogue.* 

I  might  multiply  cases  of  the  same  nature.  Much  is  made 
of  the  difference  in  teaching  between  John  and  the  Synop- 
tists,  and  statements  are  taken  and  set  over  against  one 
another  and  spoken  of  as  ^‘insoluble  mysteries,”  without 
for  a  moment  considering  the  setting,  the  purpose,  or  spe¬ 
cial  relation  to  which  each  may  belong. 

As  to  geographical  and  historical  detail,  it  is  decisive 
that  an  eye-witness,  a  Jew  of  Palestine,  must  have  been 
the  author.  In  many  passages  he  writes,  as  only  an  eye- 
v/itness  could,  of  the  events  recorded,  speaking  of  days, 
hours  and  many  other  minute  particulars  which  must  have 
passed  before  his  eyes;  and  he  gives,  too,  the  impressions 
made  upon  those  listening  to  Jesus,  and  the  misunder¬ 
standings  uttered  by  various  classes  in  connection  with  his 
record  of  the  Lord's  discourse.  He  shows  himself  familiar 
with  Jewish  customs  and  speaks  correctly  of  them.  Against 
this  one  thing  weighs  heavily  with  Schmiedel.  It  is  “the 
serious  mistake  by  which  in  11 :  49  and  18 :  13  Caiaphas  is 
called  the  high  priest  of  that  year,”  which  he  takes  to 
mean  that  the  writer  assumes  that  the  office  changed 
hands  every  year,  while  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  High  Priest 
held  office  for  life,  and  though  it  happened  not  infre¬ 
quently  that  one  was  deposed  there  was  never  any  question 
of  a  yearly  vacation.f  Is  Schmiedel  really  ignorant,  or 
what?  I  need  only  refer  to  the  article  on  Annas  and 
Caiaphas  by  Baron  Sodem,  Professor  of  New  Testament 
Exegesis,  Berlin,  in  the  Ency  Biblica.  In  6  A.  D.  Quiri- 
nius  appointed  Annas  high  priest.  Through  change  of 
government,  nine  years  later,  he  was  deposed.  Valerius 
Gratus,who  succeeded  Quirinius,  appointed  three  men,  none 
of  whom  held  office  for  more  than  a  year.  Finally,  in 


*  These  supposed  cases  of  contradiction  in  John  are  from 
the  Ency.  Biblica,  **John”  2538. 

t  Ency.  Biblica,  **John,**  2542  ;  and  “  The  Johxinnine 
Writings^’  (pp.  188-9). 


292 


Modernism 


18  A.  D.  he  appointed  Caiaphas,  who  held  the  office  for 
eighteen  years.  Yet  history  seems  to  accord  to  Annas  a 
dominant  influence  throughout  these  years  in  the  high 
priestly  regime,  for,  after  his  own  deposition  and  during 
his  lifetime,  three  of  his  sons  and  Caiaphas,  his  son-in-law, 
filled  this  position.  This  prominence  may  well  account  for 
Jesus  being  first  brought  before  Annas  (John  18:13), 
and  if  we  take  into  consideration  Luke  3:  2  and  Acts  4:  6 
it  would  appear  that  he  co-ordinately  shared  the  first 
place.  Some  such  arrangement,  not  previously  unknown 
in  Jewish  history,  would  fully  explain  John’s  supposed 
serious  mistake.  Assumption  is  plainly  with  Schmiedel, 
for  John  does  not  speak  of  tenure  of  office.  His  state¬ 
ment  cannot  be  construed  to  mean  a  denial  of  previous  or 
future  occupation  of  the  office  on  the  part  of  Caiaphas, 
and  is  a  precise  statement  of  the  time  then  present. 

I  must  close  with  a  brief  mention  of  the  different  repre¬ 
sentation  of  Jesus  in  this  Gospel  to  that  of  the  Synoptists. 
As  usual  no  special  design  is  thought  of  by  the  critics 
when  treating  of  this  feature,  but  stress  is  laid  upon  the 
almost  entire  lack  of  “any  really  human  traits.”  Well, 
He  was  wearied  and  evidently  hungry,  when  He  reached 
Sychar’s  well,  for  the  disciples  went  away  to  buy  food  and 
quickly  offer  it  to  Him  upon  their  return.  He  could  weep 
over  the  death  of  a  friend,  and  because  of  the  sorrow  it 
caused.  He  could  speak  of  His  soul  being  troubled,  and 
refer  to  Himself  as  a  man,  also  care  for  His  mother  at 
the  cross.  Evidence  is  not  lacking  on  this  score,  but  that 
it  does  not  abound  is  plainly  due  to  the  special  object  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  this  Gospel,  and  so  it  becomes  a  perfection 
rather  than  a  blemish.  In  fact  it  is  just  this  result  which 
is  found  true  in  nearly  all  that  these  unbelieving  critics 
advance. 

In  conclusion.  Dr.  Cobern  gives  an  interesting  archeolo¬ 
gical  suggestion  in  relation  to  John’s  Gospel  from  C.  O. 
Lamberton,  who,  in  speaking  of  the  pictures  of  the  early 
Roman  catacombs,  endeavors  to  show  that  this  Gospel  was 
influencing  the  wall-paintings  in  a  marked  degree  by  the 


The  Genuineness  of  John's  Gospel  293 

end  of  the  first  century,  or  at  least  by  the  opening  decade 
of  the  second.  Lamberton  “shows  from  the  best  authorities 
on  art  that  Biblical  themes  peculiar  to  St.  John — raising  of 
Lazarus  and  the  woman  of  Samaria — are  each  found  once 
before  A.  D.  180  (one  of  these  almost  certainly  being  as 
early  as  A.  D.  130),  while  three  or  four  other  pictures  of 
the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  must  be  dated  to  the  end  of  the 
first  or  during  the  second  century.  As  these  themes  are  not 
treated  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  but  only  in  St.  John,  the 
inference  is  drawn  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  must  have 
become  widely  influential  before  such  pictures  would  have 
been  painted  on  Christian  tombs.  By  a  similar  argument 
the  influence  of  Matthew’s  Gospel  can  be  proved  from  the 
many  pictures  of  the  Magi,  while  it  may  also  be  shown 
that  no  influence  of  the  apocryphal  gospels  is  apparent 
earlier  than  the  fourth  century.”* 


*  The  New  Archeological  Discoveries,  pp.  401-2. 


APPENDIX  IV. 


^^The  New  Testament  To-day”"^ 

HIS  book  sets  forth  in  concise  form  the  present 


attitude  toward,  and  treatment  of,  the  New  Testa¬ 


ment.  The  heart  of  its  whole  argument  is  found  in 
chapter  three  which  deals  with  the  New  Testament  as  be¬ 
ing  a  product  of  its  time.  The  basis  for  this  is,  of  course, 
the  highly  esteemed  historical  method  of  criticism.  This 
consists  in  studying  all  the  various  movements  of  thought 
which  characterized  the  time  immediately  before  the  ad¬ 
vent  of  Christ,  and  also  of  the  century  following  during 
which  the  New  Testament  came  into  existence.  Certain 
elements  or  features  of  similarity  in  thought  or  phrase 
being  found,  the  conclusion  is  confidently  drawn  that  the 
New  Testament  is  simply  the  adaptation  of  these  ideas  and 
thoughts,  though  it  is  admitted  that  they  are  clothed  in 
a  superior  form,  which  has  enabled  them  to  endure  for 
these  nineteen  centuries,  while  all  from  which  the  writers 
‘‘borrowed”  has  fallen  into  oblivion. 

“For  the  modern  scholar,  then,  the  New  Testament  is 
a  product  of  its  own  age,  and  he  has  learned  to  explore 
the  history  of  thought  and  religion  of  that  age  for  the 
purpose  of  understanding  it”  (p.  54). 

Thus  the  apocryphal  writings  which  were  produced  in 
the  interval  between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  must  be 
considered  along  with  those  of  the  Pagan  systems  of  phil¬ 
osophy  and  religion  which  prevailed  during  the  first  cen- 


*  The  New  Testament  To-day ^  by  Ernest  Findlay  Scotty 
D.  Z>.,  Prof,  of  Biblical  Theology  in  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.  The  Macmillan  Co.,  1923. 

This  appendix  is  added  as  showing  the  extreme  results 
arrived  at  by  following  the  methods  of  criticism  and  inter¬ 
pretation  adopted  by  the  Modernist  school. 


'The  New  Testament  To-day” 


295 


tury,  in  which  '‘the  currents  of  Eastern  and  Western  life 
were  so  strangely  mixed” — Greek  philosophy,  Eastern  mys¬ 
ticism,  Stoic  morality,  all  mingled  together.  With  these 
must  be  combined  a  survey  of  the  early  Christian  liter¬ 
ature  usually  considered  outside  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament.  These  are  to  be  considered  as  the  sources  of 
our  New  Testament. 

The  conclusion  is  that  “the  whole  literature  must  be 
taken  together  if  we  would  fully  understand  the  world  of 
thought  in  which  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  moved. 
Even  the  writings  which  were  condemned  as  heretical  be¬ 
long  to  the  same  general  movement,  and  serve  to  illustrate 
not  a  few  of  the  tendencies  which  can  be  discerned  in  Paul 
and  John.  By  fortunate  accident  a  number  of  lost  works 
of  early  Christian  literature  have  been  recovered,  just  at 
the  time  when  scholarship  had  learned  to  value  them,  and 
a  vigilant  watch  is  being  kept  for  others.  For  purposes  of 
investigation,  the  distinction  of  writings  within  and  out¬ 
side  of  the  Canon  has  now  been  abandoned.  The  New 
Testament  books  for  the  modern  scholar  are  only  the  out¬ 
standing  peak  of  a  large  literature,  which  must  be  consi¬ 
dered  as  a  whole  before  we  can  justly  estimate  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  Christian  movement”  (p.  55). 

“Of  late  years,  therefore,  we  have  learned  to  read  the 
New  Testament  in  a  larger  context  than  was  formerly 
thought  necessary,  and  much  in  the  record  has  taken  on  a 
new  significance”  (p.  57). 

As  a  consequence  Dr.  Scott  presents  the  New  Testament 
as  a  record  showing  the  great  “borrowing”  powers  of  its 
writers.  He  assures  us  that  with  great  skill  they  took  up 
Pagan  rites,  and  in  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  pre¬ 
sented  them  purged  of  their  grosser  ideas;  they  took  up 
philosophical  conceptions  like  the  Logos  doctrine  of  the 
Greek  thinkers,  the  maxims  of  Stoic  morality,  the  mystical 
piety  of  the  Eastern  cults,  and  baptized  them  into  the 
new  religion  so  that  “they  can  no  longer  be  considered  as 
in  any  real  sense  foreign”  (pp.  70,  71). 

“To  many  minds  this  discovery  (?)  that  our  religion 


296 


Modernism 


has  so  largely  borrowed  from  alien  sources  has  been  more 
disquieting  than  any  other”  (p.  66).  It  certainly  makes  it 
savor  of  adulteration  instead  of  being  unique  in  its  source 
and  purity.  “Nevertheless  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
while  it  was  still  in  process  of  moulding  it  was  influenced 
on  many  sides  from  without,  and  that  some  of  the  doc¬ 
trines  which  have  always  been  regarded  as  native  to  it 
were  in  their  origin  Pagan.”  Hence,  “we  are  learning  to 
suspect  that  within  a  few  years  of  Jesus^  death  the  gospel 
underwent  an  admixture  from  the  side  of  that  very  Pagan¬ 
ism  which  it  condemned.  No  wonder  that  the  discovery 
has  seemed  to  many  to  have  destroyed  the  value  of  the 
New  Testament”  (p.  72).  Dr.  Scott  hastens  to  the  rescue, 
and  says,  “A  truer  estimate  of  our  religion  will  some  day 
acknowledge  that  its  greatness  consists  not  only  in  what 
it  gave  from  itself  but  in  what  it  rescued.  Holding  to  its 
own  beliefs,  it  yet  attracted  and  made  part  of  itself  all 
that  was  true  and  noble  in  the  spiritual  life  of  the  ancient 
world.  Thoughts  and  aspirations  of  the  highest  value 
which  were  entangled  in  the  old  idolatries,  and  would  have 
perished  with  them,  were  given  a  place  in  the  message  of 
Christ,  and  were  so  transmitted  to  enrich  the  life  of  hu¬ 
manity  in  all  times”  (pp.  66,  67).  So  he  feels  we  must 
recognize  in  it  an  inherent  power.  “It  reacted  on  all  that 
it  borrowed,  and  exercised  a  power  of  selection.  From  the 
miscellaneous  life  of  the  time  it  took  what  was  congenial  to 
its  own  nature,  rejecting  by  a  sure  instinct  all  that  was 
alien”  (p.  69). 

This  book,  then,  has  its  own  power,  its  own  nature,  its 
sure  instinct,  its  own  beliefs.  Dr.  Scott  admits;  but  what 
is  their  source,  how  did  it  get  these  distinctive  qualities, 
from  what  soil  have  they  sprung?  Can  historical  criticism 
inform  us?  Its  great  purpose  is  to  discover  origins;  has  it 
discovered  the  origin  of  these  admitted  characteristics  of 
this  book,  which  yet  seems  according  to  the  critics  to  sur¬ 
pass  all  others  in  borrowed  material? 

Now  admitting  all  that  is  announced  as  discovery  through 
these  wonderful  excursions  of  historical  criticism,  which 


“The  New  Testament  To-day^' 


297 


even  considers  much  of  our  Lord’s  teaching  to  be  rooted 
in  apocryphal  ideas,  how  does  this  prove  the  inferences 
drawn  and  then  set  forth  as  irrefutable  conclusions  based 
on  the  incontrovertible  evidence  of  history? 

Taking  our  stand  upon  the  plenary  inspiration  of  all 
the  Scriptures — Old  and  New  alike— we  refuse  their  con¬ 
clusions.  There  was  no  “borrowing.”  That  is  mere  infer¬ 
ence  against  which  there  is  abundance  of  internal  evidence 
to  be  gathered  from  the  books  themselves.  When  I  find 
the  New  Testament  rooted  as  to  its  teaching  and  phrase¬ 
ology  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  no  corresponding  mea¬ 
sure  when  comparison  is  made  with  contemporaneous  liter¬ 
ature,  what  conclusion  is  then  to  be  drawn  as  to  supposed 
sources?  Can  Dr.  Scott  show  that  we  are  unreasonable  in 
considering  the  sources  from  which  the  New  Testament 
writers  are  said  to  have  so  copiously  borrowed  as  nothing 
more  than  the  dim  and  faulty  strivings  of  human  wisdom, 
seeking  what  would  satisfy  the  gropings  of  human  reason 
after  the  knowledge  of  God.  Can  we  consistently  admit 
them  to  be  more  than  this  in  the  light  of  Dr.  Scott’s  elo¬ 
quent  insistence  upon  the  distinctive  character,  permanent 
value,  abiding  superiority  and  absolute  necessity  of  the 
New  Testament  to  modern  religion?  One  of  his  reviewers 
assures  us  that,  “For  Dr.  Scott,  the  New  Testament  is  the 
central  power  in  the  whole  modern  task  of  world  recon¬ 
struction.” 

But  what  explains  this  mastery,  this  inherent  power? 
Modern  historical  criticism  can  give  no  explanation.  Speak¬ 
ing  of  the  triumph  of  Christianity,  as  it  is  called,  over 
every  rival  cult,  we  are  told:  “This  was  not  due  to  some 
accidental  advantage,  whereby  it  was  able  to  supplant  and 
finally  absorb  its  rivals,  for  every  advantage  was  on  their 
side.  They  were  already  in  the  field,  and  had  long  over¬ 
come  all  popular  prejudice  against  them.  They  had  the 
prestige  of  high  antiquity ,while  Christianity  had  only  come 
into  existence  in  the  time  of  men  still  living.  They  were 
made  imposing  to  the  public  eye  by  gorgeous  ceremonial, 
and  men  of  the  loftiest  gifts,  artists  and  poets  and  philo- 


298 


[Modernism 


sophers,*  had  thrown  a  glamour  around  their  doctrines. 
Christianity  from  the  outset  was  the  object  of  dislike  and 
ridicule  and  every  kind  of  slander.  Its  founder  had  notor¬ 
iously  been  condemned  as  a  malefactor.  Its  adherents 
were  drawn  mostly  from  the  lowest  ranks.  It  lay  under 
political  suspicion,  and  all  good  citizens  were  convinced 
that  they  discharged  a  public  duty  in  trying  to  suppress 
it.  Nevertheless,  wherever  it  went  it  exercised  a  marvel¬ 
ous  power  of  attraction,  and  the  movements  which  had 
held  contemptuously  aloof  were  gradually  won  over  to  it. 
From  the  time  when  it  had  once  succeeded  in  putting  its 
message  before  the  world  its  victory  over  all  competitors 
was  certain.  It  is  mere  trifling  to  contend  that  this  suc¬ 
cess,  obtained  in  the  teeth  of  every  drawback,  was  due  to 
nothing  more  than  a  number  of  adventitious  causes.  When 
the  amplest  allowance  has  been  made  for  all  of  these  there 
is  no  way  of  accounting  for  the  victory  of  Christianity 
except  by  its  own  inherent  power”  (p.  68).  But  agairiy  1 
askj  What  explains  this?  What  is  the  source  of  this 
power? 

What  else  can  explain  the  New  Testament  but  absolute 
independence  of  source?  For  this  its  distinctive  purity 
and  sublimity  strongly  argue,  especially  since  it  came  from 
men  who  it  is  said  could  not  possibly  be  put  in  the  same 
class  as  those  great  Greeks  and  Romans  who  produced  the 
literature  from  which  they  are  supposed  to  have  borrowed. 
How  came  these  second  or  third  class  men,  then,  to  write 
what  is  admittedly  better,  greater  in  power,  abiding  in 
value,  and  supreme  as  to  place  relatively  considered? 

The  explanation  is  found  at  once  when  the  New  Testa- 


*  But  Dr.  Scott  wisely  omits  reference  to  the  well-known 
moral  corruption  which  prevailed  among  all  classes,  so 
that  the  worst  of  moral  evils  ^‘regarded  from  of  old  with 
indulgence  and  even  with  favor,  nay,  practised  without 
shame  even  by  philosophers  and  surrounded  by  poets  with 
all  the  tinsel  of  lasciviousness,  had  become  in  public 
opinion  a  thing  really  indifferent.” 


“The  New  Testament  To-day’^ 


299 


ment  ts  recognized  as  absolutely  inspired  of  God,  final  and 
complete  in  form  and  matter,  always  adaptable  in  every 
respect  to  every  age  and  clime — and  this  it  must  indeed 
be  if  God-breathed.  This  is  its  claim.  Thus  God  has 
given  His  own  perfect  revelation,  the  all-illuminating  light, 
scattering  once  and  forever  the  shades  of  night  and  the 
phantoms  of  human  wisdom,  bringing  life  and  incorrupti¬ 
bility  to  light  through  the  gospel.  Could  anything  else 
happen  than  just  what  Dr.  Scott  describes? 

The  New  Testament  was  not  the  product  of  its  time,  but 
the  product  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  working  through  chosen  in¬ 
struments,  by  which  God  thus  gave  His  final  and  complete 
revelation  to  the  v/orld. 

There  is  no  question  but  that  we  may  rightly  consider 
the  New  Testament  to  be  also  a  record  of  the  oral  preach¬ 
ing  and  teaching  of  the  disciples  and  apostles,  by  which 
through  the  guiding  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  the  Church 
was  formed  on  earth.  The  work  had  progressed  over 
twenty  years  before  the  first  book  (1  Thessalonians)  was 
written.  They  preached  and  taught  during  those  years 
what  we  read  of  in  its  books.  Were  these  men  reared  in 
schools  of  Pagan  culture,  or  did  they  belong  to  the  current 
schools  of  Judaism?  Were  they  men  of  letters?  How  did 
they  come  to  be  such  adepts  at  the  borrowing  art?  And  if 
they  really  mastered  and  assimilated  so  much  from  ali 
the  current  and  widely  accepted  cults,  how  was  it  that 
Christianity  was  so  disliked,  ridiculed,  and  slandered  dur¬ 
ing  the  first  century?  If  they  were  such  borrowers  from 
contemporary  literature  how  is  it  they  did  not  write  like 
“the  literary  writers  of  the  time  who  use  a  jargon,  in  their 
desire  toi  hark  back  to  the  models  of  the  classical  age, 
while  in  the  New  Testament  we  have  the  living  idiom” 
(p.  62).  According  to  linguistic  study  and  modern  explor¬ 
ation,  it  is  supposed  to  be  now  clearly  proved  that  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  though  differing  widely  from 
classical  Greek  in  structure,  grammar,  and  vocabulary,  is 
the  same  as  the  ordinary  colloquial  language  of  the  day,  the 
same  as  made  use  of  in  everyday  life  (p.  62). 


300 


Modernism 


When  all  the  evidence  is  considered,  and  not  merely  the 
one-sided  “discoveries”  of  historical  criticism,  there  can  be 
no  other  reasonable  explanation  of  the  New  Testament 
than  that  offered  in  these  pages.  Once  we  are  clear  as  to 
the  only  possible  relation  of  the  New  Testament  to  its 
time,  to  which  the  internal  evidence  gathered  from  the 
book  itself  so  clearly  points,  then  the  canons  of  modern 
interpretation  are  seen  to  be  childish  and  useless.  Dr. 
Scott  enumerates  some  of  them.  We  quote: 

“It  constantly  happens  that  in  their  desire  to  combat 
some  particular  form  of  error  the  writers  state  their 
thought  one-sidedly,  or  develop  it  along  special  lines” 
(p. 38). 

“As  the  products  of  controversy  the  New  Testament 
writings  almost  always  betray  a  bias  of  which  we  must 
take  account”  (p.  38). 

“It  is  frankly  recognized  that  they  stand  for  different 
types  of  Christianity,  and  instead  of  trying  to  conceal  the 
differences  the  modem  scholar  is  anxious  to  set  them  in 
clear  relief”  (p.  39). 

“To  obtain  the  guidance  which  the  New  Testament  can 
afford  us  we  must  learn  to  read  it  historically”  (p.  36). 

“We  can  no  longer  go  to  the  New  Testament  as  to  a 
storehouse  of  infallible  texts,  but  we  need  not  treasure  it 
the  less  because  it  makes  no  claim  to  finality”  (?)  (p.,  46). 

“The  New  Testament  does  not  profess  to  be  more  than  a 
beginning”  (?)  (p.  46). 

“To  be  sure,  we  are  now  obliged  to  recognize  the  hu¬ 
man  limitations  of  the  book.  We  can  see  that  doctrines 
which  were  once  supposed  to  embody  the  absolute  truth 
were  mixed  up  with  much  that  was  transient  and  mis¬ 
taken”  (p.  87). 

“Our  very  sense  that  they  could  only  half  express  them¬ 
selves  arouses  us  to  a  personal  effort  of  faith  and  S3mi- 
pathy,  so  that  we  may  reach  through  the  letter  to.  the 
living  conviction  that  was  in  their  minds”  (p.  88). 

“Our  duty  is  to  pierce  through  the  letter  to  the  truth 
which  it  has  expressed  in  part”  (p.  29). 


^The  New  Testament  To-day'' 


301 


And  the  most  that  can  be  said  after  about  a  century  of 
enquiry  along  these  lines  is  that  criticism  “has  reached  a 
few  broad  conclusions  which  are  no  longer  open  to  ques¬ 
tion”  (p.  51).  Again  we  are  cheerfully  told,  “It  cannot 
be  said  that  any  final  conclusions  have  yet  been  reached 
on  the  various  questions  affecting  the  New  Testament 
books.  On  some  of  the  most  important  points  opinion  is 
more  divided  than  a  few  years  ago,  and  the  general  result 
of  inquiry,  in  this  field  as  in  every  other,  has  been  to  raise 
two  new  problems  for  every  one  that  is  solved”  (p.  33). 
This,  then,  is  the  extent  of  modern  progress  as  stated  by 
one  of  its  votaries.  The  more  it  is  studied  the  more  it 
becomes  apparent  that  the  whole  structure  is  without  a 
foundation,  and  is  built  entirely  upon  the  shifting  sands 
of  human  theory. 

The  believer  ofi  the  old-fashioned  way  has  nothing  to 
fear.  The  book  abides  unchanged.  The  explanation  it 
gives  of  its  own  origin  alone  truly  accounts  for*  all  the 
phenomena,  whether  of  production,  success,  or  continuance. 
Its  life,  its  power,  its  authority,  its  abiding  sufficiency  are 
still  proved  every  day.  Is  there  another  book  like  it^ 
On  Dr.  Scott’s  own  showing  there  is  not!  Why  this  uni¬ 
versal  pre-eminence?  Why,  indeed,  if  it  were  merely  the 
product  of  its  time?  Historical  criticism  can  no  more  ex¬ 
plain  the  riddle  of  the  New  Testament  than  evolution  can 
that  of  the  universe.  Upon  both  one  image  and  super¬ 
scription  is  indelibly  stamped.  In  the  temple  of  the  in¬ 
spired  Word,  as  in  that  of  creation,  everything  speaks  in 
unison  of  the  one  eternal  God — Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit — to  whom  be  the  glory  both  now  and  forever. 


Works  by  F.  W.  GRANT 


THE  EHMEBICAL  BIBLE.  Being :  Ist— A  New  Translation  from  the 
Originals.  Instead  of  chapters  and  verses,  the  divisions  of  the  Text  are 
those  indicated  in  the  Scripture  itself,  and  form  an  Index  to  its  sub¬ 
jects.  2nd.— The  Notes,  following  with  the  Text,  form  a  commentary 
valued  above  any  other  by  diligent  students  of  Scripture,  and  are  the 
chief  feature  of  the  work.  3rd. — A  new  compilation  of  References. 

PUBLISHED  VOLUISES. 

Nkw  Test  ament.  Onn  Ticst  ament. 

(Complete  in  3  Vols.)  (Incomplete.) 

The  Four  Gospels.  ,  The  Pentateuch, 

Acts  &  Paul’s  Epistles.  I  Joshua— 2  Samuel. 

Hebrews— Revelation.  I  The  Psalms. 

Best  Cloth  (vols.  sold  separately) . . each,  net,  ?2  60 

Half-morocco,  gilt  edges  (sold  in  sets  only) . . net,  ^4.00 

Atonement:  InType,  Prophecy,  &  Accomplishment.  Tracing  through¬ 
out  Scripture  atonement  by  the  Cross.  Paper,  50  cts. ;  cloth, . $1.00 

The  Crowned  Christ.  Paper  covers,  30  cts.;  cloth, .  75 

A  Divine  Movement,  &  OurPath  with  God  To-day.  Paper,  20cts.-*-  ^ 

Facts  and  Theories  as  to  a  Future  State.  I.— Man  as  he  is.  n.— Death 
and  the  Intermediate  State.  HI. — ^The  Eternal  Issues.  An  exhaus¬ 
tive  examination  and  Refutation,  by  the  light  of  Scripture,  of  the 
views  of  leading  annihilationists  and  restorationists  of  these  times. 
Cloth,  new  and  enlarged  edition.  (600  pp.) . $2.00 

Genesis  in  the  Light  of  the  New  Testament.  Part  I.— God’s  coun¬ 
sels  in  Creation.  Part  U.— Divine  life  in  its  various  aspects. 
Paper,  35  cts.;  cloth, . . .  75 

God’s  Evangel.  Fourteen  Gospel  addresses,  setting  forth  the  fulness 

of  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ.  Paper,  30  cts. ;  cloth, .  75 

Leaves  from  the  Book.  Twenty-two  papers  on  various  subjects  ;  a 

most  valuable  volume  for  Believers.  416  pp.  Cloth, . $1,25 

The  Numerical  Structure  of  Scripture.  A  seal  upon  its  perfect  in¬ 
spiration,  and  a  divinely  given  help  to  its  right  Inspiration. 
Paper,  40  cts.;  Cloth, . . .  75 

The  Prophetic  History  of  the  Church.  As  seen  in  the  Seven  Churches 

of  Asia  (Rev.  2  and's).  183  pages,  paper,  .  .  35 

The  Revelation  of  Christ  to  His  Servants,  In  two  parts:— “The 
Things  That  Are”  (chaps.  1 — 8) ;  and  “The  Things  That  Shall  Be” 
(chaps.  4-22).  A  thorough  exposition  of  the  book  of  Revelation. 

480  pp.  Cloth, . $.  ' 

Spiritual  Law  in  the  Natural  World.  A  connected  argument  that 
Nature  is  throughout  a  witness  for  God.  Cloth, . $l.f  0 

Creation  in  Genesis  and  Geology.  64  pp .  12 

Deliverance :  What  is  it  A  exposition  of  God’s  way  of  deliverance 
out  of  the  bondage  expressed  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans, . .  06 
The  Mysteries  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  An  exposition  of  Mat¬ 
thew  13  with  tracings  of  the  Kingdom  in  other  Scriptures . 

Re-Tracings  of  Truth :  In  View  of  Questions  lately  raised.  Paper, . .  20 


Order#  for  $1.  sent  free^  add  lO^c  for  smaller  orders. 


BY  SAMUEL  RIDOUT 


THE  BIBLE  THE  TRUE  UNIVERSITY.  Paper,  20c.;  Cloth,  50c, 

The  Bible  as  a  liberal  education.  The  Word  of  God  a  necessity  for  tLe 
knowledge  of  the  Works  of  God. 

HOW  TO  STUDY  THE  BIBLE.  Paper,  50c.;  Cloth,  $1.00 

Gives  practical  hints  as  to  methods,  and  provides  plans  for  Bible  study 
from  a  few  minutes  up  to  several  liours  daily. 

THE  PENTATEUCH.  Paper,  50a;  Cloth,  $1.00 

Befdtes  the  infidel  assults  upon  this  part  of  Scripture,  and  also  shows  Its 
beauty  of  order,  general  theme,  and  the  place  occupied  by  each 
of  the  separate  books  in  this  connection. 

THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.  Cloth,  $1.50 

Examines  the  distinct  yet  closely  connected  narratives  of  the  Life  of  our 
Lord,  each  of  which  presents  Him  in  a  special  way. 

LECTURES  ON  THE  TABERNACLE.  Best  Cloth,  $2.00 

A  very  fiill  exposition,  with  examinations  of  the  types  and  doctrinal 
exemxfiifications  from  the  New  Testament.  With  nine  plates. 

FROM  GENESES  TO  REVELATION.  Paper,  50c.;  Cloth,  $1.00 

Twelve  Lectures  on  the  Structure  and  Contents  of  the  Bible  Books. 

LECTURES  on  the  BOOK  of  JUDGES.  Paper,  50c.;  aoth,$l. 

Sets  forth  the  various  steps  of  declension  and  recoveries  in  Israel, 
with  applications  to  similax  conditions  in  the  professing  Chm'ch. 

THE  BOOK  OF  JOB.  An  Exposition.  Cloth,  $1.00 
KING  SAUL:  The  Man  after  the  Flesh.  Paper,  50c.;  Cloth, $1. 

A  tracing  of  the  Holy  Spirit’s  lessons  in  connection  with  the  natural  man 
—the  choice  of  the  people ;  with  David’s  early  history. 

LECTURES  on  the  EPISTLE  to  the  HEBREWS. 

Paper,  50c.;  Cloth,  $1.00 

THE  PERSON  and  WORK  of  the  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

Paper,  35c.;  Cloth,  $1.00 

I.  The  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Dispensations ;  IT.  In  Salvation ;  ITT.  In 
Bauctiflcation  ;  IV.  In  the  Church ;  V.  For  Power ;  VI.  The  Holy 
Spirit  and  the  Scriptures ;  VII.  The  Holy  Spirit  and  Christ. 

THE  CHURCH  and  its  Order  According  to  Scripture. 

Paper  covers,  26c. 

GLEANINGS  FROM  the  BOOK  of  RUTH.  Paper,  15c. 


Orders  for  $1.  tent  free;  add  10^  for  smaller  orders 


BY  J.  G.  BELLETT 


The  Son  of  God 

A  Treatise  dwelling  on  the  eternal  glories  and 
Godhead  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ; — the  “Son 
that  dwelleth  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  He 
hath  revealed  Him.’’  Paper,  25c.;  cloth,  60 

The  Moral  Glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus 

A  precious  little  volume  for  all  those  who,  like 
Mary,  would  sit  at  the  Saviour’s  feet. 

Paper,  20c.;  cloth,  60 

The  Evangelists 

A  Study  of  the  Four  Gospels,  “tracing  the  varied 
glories  of  Christ,  and  to  notice  their  characteris¬ 
tics,  so  as  to  distinguish  the  purpose  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  each  of  them.”  500  pp.  cloth,  $1.50 

The  Patriarchs 

Being  Meditations  upon  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham, 
Isaac,  Jacob,  Joseph,  and  Job:  with  the  Canticles, 
and  Heaven  and  Earth.  435  pp.  Cloth,  $1.60 

The  Captives  of  Judah 

Lessons  from  the  Books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah  and 
Esther  Paper,  20 

Short  Meditations  on  Elisha 

A  precious  little  book,  tracing  the  ways  of  God 
in  grace,  as  represented  by  His  servant  Elisha, 
amid  Israel’s  fallen  condition.  Paper.  20c;  cloth,  60 

Miscellaneous  Papers 

New  Creation;  Woolen  and  Linen;  etc.,etc.  Paper,  20 

Meditations  on  the  Psalms 

Chiefly  in  their  Prophetic  Character.  Cloth,  $1.00 

On  the  Gospel  of  John 

Reprinted  from  The  Evangelists.  Paper,  35 

HebrewSy  or  The  Opened  Heavens 

Cloth,  60 

Orders  for  $1.  sent  free;  add  lO^c  for  smaller  orders. 


LOIZEAUX  BROTHERS,  Publishers 

1  East  13th  Street  New  York  City 


